Re: Standalone synchronous master

Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>

From: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Alexander Björnhagen <alex.bjornhagen@gmail.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2012-01-15T21:46:30Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
>> I don't understand why this is controversial.  In the current code, if
>> you have a master and a single sync standby, and the master disappears
>> and you promote the standby, now the new master is running *without a
>> standby*.
>
> If you configured it to use sync rep, it won't accept any transactions
> until you give it a standby.  If you configured it not to, then it's you
> that has changed the replication requirements.

Sure, but isn't that a very common usage?  Maybe my perceptions are
out of whack, but I commonly hear about fail-over and rarely hear
about using more than one slave so that you can fail over and still
have a positive number of slaves.

Cheers,

Jeff