Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 11:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> We can *not* allow the slave to replay WAL ahead of what is known >> committed to disk on the master. The only way to make that safe >> is the compare-notes-and-ship-WAL-back approach that Robert mentioned. >> >> If you feel that decoupling WAL application is absolutely essential >> to have a credible feature, then you'd better bite the bullet and >> start working on the ship-WAL-back code.
> Why not just failover? Guaranteed failover is another large piece we don't have. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers