On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure. If you give the standbys names, then if people change the > names, they'll have to update their configuration. But I can't see > that as an argument against doing it. You can remove the possibility > that someone will have a hassle if they rename a server by not > allowing them to give it a name in the first place, but that doesn't > seem like a win from a usability perspective.
I'm just comparing your idea (i.e., set synchronous_standbys on each possible master) with my idea (i.e., set replication_mode on each standby). Though your idea has the advantage described in the following post, it seems to make the setup of the standbys more complicated, as I described. So I'm trying to generate better idea. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-08/msg00007.php 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
