Re: Standalone synchronous master

On 01/10/2014 03:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

>> Any continuous replication should not be a SPOF. The current behavior
>> guarantees that a two node sync cluster is a SPOF. The proposed behavior
>> removes that.
>
> Again, if that's your goal, then use async replication.

I think I have gone about this the wrong way. Async does not meet the
technical or business requirements that I have. Sync does except that it
increases the possibility of an outage. That is the requirement I am
trying to address.

>
> The purpose of sync rep is to know determinatively whether or not you
> have lost data when disaster strikes. If knowing for certain isn't
> important to you, then use async.

PostgreSQL Sync replication increases the possibility of an outage. That
is incorrect behavior.

I want sync because on the chance that the master goes down, I have as
much data as possible to fail over to. However, I can't use sync because
it increases the possibility that my business will not be able to
function on the chance that the standby goes down.

>
> What's a bad idea is adding an auto-degrade option without any tools to
> manage and monitor it, which is what this patch does by my reading. If

This we absolutely agree on.

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary
act.", George Orwell