Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 09:37 -0500, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> [081211 05:25]:
>
> > - standalone
> > The primary doesn't archive the WAL only during replication. If
> replication is
> > not in progress, the primary archives the WAL. That is, the
> primary switches
> > the modes whenever replication starts / ends.

> But I'm sure as hell *not* going to throw all my eggs into that
> slave's
> basket and do away with my WAL archive... Would anyone actually use
> that "standby" mode, and if not, why compilcate the code for it?

Sending data twice is not a requirement I ever heard expressed, nor has
the lack of ability to send it twice been voiced as a criticism for any
form of replication I'm familiar with. Ask the DRBD guys if sending data
twice is necessary or required to make replication work.

If multiple people think its a good idea then I respect your choice of
option.

But I also think that many or perhaps most people will choose not to
send data twice and I respect that choice of option also.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support