On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich) > <harald.k...@nsn.com> wrote: > > In our use case it's important to have a short failover time. > > So everything what keeps the time low, would be good to have. > > Yes. I think that it's a matter of priority.
Reducing failover time should be the subject of another patch, not something to be included in synch rep. That will just make patch bigger and harder to commit. Fast failover is important and we should eventually do it, even plan it for next release, but it should not be a priority (ahead of or same as sync rep). -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
