Re: Standalone synchronous master

On 8 January 2014 21:40, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
>> I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but
>> if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about
>> what a successful return from a commit request means.  Sooner or
>> later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will
>> lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is
>> missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed.
>
> I'm for not caving.  I think people who are asking for this don't
> actually understand what they'd be getting.

Agreed.


Just to be clear, I made this mistake initially. Now I realise Heikki
was right and if you think about it long enough, you will too. If you
still disagree, think hard, read the archives until you do.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services