Horton

Re: Standalone synchronous master

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>, MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-01-10T22:44:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 01/10/2014 02:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2014-01-10 14:29:58 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> db02 goes down. It doesn't matter why. It is down. db01 continues to accept
>> orders, allow people to log into the website and we can still service
>> accounts. The continuity of service continues.
>
> Why is that configuration advantageous over a async configuration is the
> question. Why, with those requirements, are you using a synchronous
> standby at all?

If the master goes down, I can fail over knowing that as many of my 
transactions as possible have been replicated.

JD




-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary 
act.", George Orwell