On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically >> restart after a crash, insisting on a fail-over instead (or a manual >> forcing of recovery)? > > I suppose that would work, but I think Simon's idea is better: don't > let the slave replay the WAL until either (a) it's promoted or (b) the > master finishes the fsync. That boils down to adding some more > handshaking to the replication protocol, I think.
It would be 8 bytes on every data message sent to the standby. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
