On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Alexander Björnhagen <alex.bjornha...@gmail.com> wrote: > At this point I feel that this new functionality might be a bit > overkill for postgres, maybe it's better to stay lean and mean rather > than add a controversial feature like this.
I don't understand why this is controversial. In the current code, if you have a master and a single sync standby, and the master disappears and you promote the standby, now the new master is running *without a standby*. If you are willing to let the new master run without a standby, why are you not willing to let the the old one do so if it were the standby which failed in the first place? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
