Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 15:50 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I assumed that when Simon was talking about removing
>> allow_standalone_primary, he meant making the code always behave
>> as if it were turned OFF.
>
> That is the part that is currently not fully specified, so no that
> is not currently included in the patch.
>
> That isn't double-talk for "and I will not include it".
>
> What I mean is I'd rather have something than nothing, whatever we
> decide to call it.
+1 on that.
> But the people that want it had better come up with a clear
> definition of how it will actually work
What is ill-defined? I would have thought that the commit request
would hang indefinitely until the server was able to provide its
usual guarantees. I'm not clear on what cases aren't covered by
that.
-Kevin