On Jan 8, 2014, at 9:27 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 05:39:23PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 8 January 2014 09:07, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to say right off the bat that I think the whole notion to
>>> automatically disable synchronous replication when the standby goes down is
>>> completely bonkers.
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>> We had this discussion across 3 months and we don't want it again.
>> This should not have been added as a TODO item.
>
> I am glad Heikki and Simon agree, but I don't. ;-)
>
> The way that I understand it is that you might want durability, but
> might not want to sacrifice availability. Phrased that way, it makes
> sense, and notifying the administrator seems the appropriate action.
>
technically and conceptually i agree with andres and simon but from daily
experience i would say that we should make it configurable.
some people got some nasty experiences when their systems stopped working.
+1 for a GUC to control this one.
many thanks,
hans
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
