Re: Standalone synchronous master
Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@gmail.com>
From: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@gmail.com>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
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: 2014-01-11T01:06:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 01/10/2014 04:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 01/10/2014 04:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Adrian, >> >> * Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@gmail.com) wrote: >>> On 01/10/2014 04:25 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>>> * Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@gmail.com) wrote: >>>>> A) Change the existing sync mode to allow the master and standby >>>>> fall out of sync should a standby fall over. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure that anyone is argueing for this.. >>> >>> Looks like here, unless I am really missing the point: >> >> Elsewhere in the thread, JD agreed that having it as an independent >> option was fine. > > Yes. I am fine with an independent option. I missed that. What confused me and seems to be generally confusing is the overloading of the term sync: "Proposed behavior: db01->sync->db02 " In my mind if that is an independent option it should have different name. I propose Schrödinger:) > > JD > > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@gmail.com