On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 15:31 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > The above case is one where I can see your point and it does sound > > easier in that case. But I then think: "What happens after failover?". > > We would then need to have 12 different standby.conf files, one on each > > standby that describes what the setup would look like if that standby > > became the master. And guess what, every time we made a change on the > > master, you'd need to re-edit all 12 standby.conf files to reflect the > > new configuration. So we're still back to having to edit in multiple > > places, ISTM. > > Unless we can make the standby.conf files identical on all servers in > the group. If we can do that, then conf file management utilities, > fileshares, or a simple automated rsync could easily take care of things.
Would prefer table. > But ... any setup which involves each standby being *required* to have a > different configuration on each standby server, which has to be edited > separately, is going to be fatally difficult to manage for anyone who > has more than a couple of standbys. So I'd like to look at what it > takes to get away from that. Agreed. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
