Horton

Re: Standalone synchronous master

Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date: 2014-01-09T21:33:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 1/9/14, 9:01 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Yeah, and I think that the logging command that was suggested allows
>> >for that*if configured correctly*.
> *But*  for relying on this, we would also need to make logging
> *synchronous*,
> which would probably not go down well with many people, as it makes things
> even more fragile from availability viewpoint (and slower as well).

Not really... you only care about monitoring performance when the standby has gone AWOL *and* you haven't sent a notification yet. Once you've notified once you're done.

So in this case the master won't go down unless you have a double fault: standby goes down AND you can't get to your monitoring.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net