On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 02.03.2011 12:40, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> allow_standalone_primary seems to need to be better through than it is >> now, yet neither of us think its worth having. >> >> If the people that want it can think it through a little better then it >> might make this release, but I propose to remove it from this current >> patch to allow us to commit with greater certainty and fewer bugs. > > If you leave it out, then let's rename the feature to "semi-synchronous > replication" or such. The point of synchronous replication is > zero-data-loss, and you don't achieve that with allow_standalone_primary=on.
I think that'd just be adding confusion. Replication will still be synchronous; it'll just be more likely to be not happening when you think it is. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
