On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps someone will claim that nobody wants to do that anyway (which > I don't believe, BTW), but even in simpler cases it would be nicer to > have an explicit policy rather than - in effect - inferring a policy > from a soup of GUC settings. For example, if you want one synchronous > standby (A) and two asynchronous standbys (B and C). You can say > quorum=1 on the master and then configure vote=1 on A and vote=0 on B > and C, but now you have to look at four machines to figure out what > the policy is, and a change on any one of those machines can break it. > ISTM that if you can just write synchronous_standbys=A on the master, > that's a whole lot more clear and less error-prone.
Some standbys may become master later by failover. So we would need to write something like synchronous_standbys=A on not only current one master but also those standbys. Changing synchronous_standbys would require change on all those servers. Or the master should replicate even that change to the standbys? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
