On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 14:12 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > What I'm saying is that in a two standby situation, if > you're willing to continue operation as usual in the master even if > the standby is down, you're not doing synchronous replication.
Oracle and I disagree with you on that point, but I am more interested in behaviour than semantics. If you have two standbys and one is down, please explain how data loss has occurred. > Extending that to a two standby situation, my claim is that if you're > willing to continue operation as usual in the master when both > standbys are down, you're not doing synchronous replication. Agreed. But you still need to decide how you will act. I choose pragmatism in that case. Others have voiced that they would like the database to shutdown or have all sessions hang. I personally doubt their employers would feel the same way. Arguing technical correctness would seem unlikely to allow a DBA to keep his job if they stood and watched the app become unavailable. -- 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
