Re: Sync Rep v17
Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
From: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>
Date: 2011-03-02T15:37:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. The primary is running with allow_standalone_primary = on. There > is only one (synchronous) standby connected. OK. Explicitly configured to allow the master to report as commited stuff which isn't on a/any slave. > 7. New primary doesn't have some transactions committed to the > client, i.e., transaction lost happens!! And this is a surprise? I'm not saying there isn't a better way to to sequence/control a shutdown to make this risk less, but isn't that the whole point of the "allow_standalone_primary" debate/option? "If there isn't a sync slave for whatever reason, just march on, I'll deal with the transactions that are committed and not replicated some other way". I guess complaining that it shouldn't be possible to "just march on when no sync slave is available" is one possible way oof "dealing with" them ;-) a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, aidan@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.