Re: Synchronous replication

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>

From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2010-08-02T12:03:40Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure.  If you give the standbys names, then if people change the
> names, they'll have to update their configuration.  But I can't see
> that as an argument against doing it.  You can remove the possibility
> that someone will have a hassle if they rename a server by not
> allowing them to give it a name in the first place, but that doesn't
> seem like a win from a usability perspective.

I'm just comparing your idea (i.e., set synchronous_standbys on
each possible master) with my idea (i.e., set replication_mode on
each standby). Though your idea has the advantage described in the
following post, it seems to make the setup of the standbys more
complicated, as I described. So I'm trying to generate better idea.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-08/msg00007.php

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center