| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2014-01-08 22:56:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20140108225637.GH2686@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> That's why you should configure a second standby as another (candidate)
> synchronous replica, also listed in synchronous_standby_names.
Perhaps we should stress in the docs that this is, in fact, the *only*
reasonable mode in which to run with sync rep on? Where there are
multiple replicas, because otherwise Drake is correct that you'll just
end up having both nodes go offline if the slave fails.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2014-01-08 22:58:16 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-08 22:54:09 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |