> I think they work together fine. Greg's idea is that you list the > important standbys, and a synchronization guarantee that you'd like to > have for at least one of them. Simon's idea - at least at 10,000 feet > - is that you can take a pass on that guarantee for transactions that > don't need it. I don't see why you can't have both.
So, two things: 1) This version of Standby Registration seems to add One More Damn Place You Need To Configure Standby (OMDPYNTCS) without adding any functionality you couldn't get *without* having a list on the master. Can someone explain to me what functionality is added by this approach vs. not having a list on the master at all? 2) I see Simon's approach where you can designate not just synch/asynch, but synch *mode* per session to be valuable. I can imagine having transactions I just want to "ack" vs. transactions I want to "apply" according to application logic (e.g. customer personal information vs. financial transactions). This approach would still seem to remove that functionality. Does it? -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers