On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The primary is running with allow_standalone_primary = on. There > is only one (synchronous) standby connected. OK. Explicitly configured to allow the master to report as commited stuff which isn't on a/any slave. > 7. New primary doesn't have some transactions committed to the > client, i.e., transaction lost happens!! And this is a surprise? I'm not saying there isn't a better way to to sequence/control a shutdown to make this risk less, but isn't that the whole point of the "allow_standalone_primary" debate/option? "If there isn't a sync slave for whatever reason, just march on, I'll deal with the transactions that are committed and not replicated some other way". I guess complaining that it shouldn't be possible to "just march on when no sync slave is available" is one possible way oof "dealing with" them ;-) a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
