Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > The defining property of synchronous replication is that when a > transaction is acknowledged as committed to the client, it has > also been replicated to the standby. You don't achieve that with > allow_standalone_primary=on, plain and simple. That's fine for a > lot of people, most people don't actually want synchronous > replication because they're not willing to pay the availability > penalty. But IMHO it would be disingenuous to call it synchronous > replication if you can't achieve zero data loss with it. Right. While there may be more people who favor high availability than the guarantees of synchronous replication, let's not blur the lines by mislabeling things. It's not synchronous replication if a commit returns successfully without the data being persisted on a second server. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
