On 01/10/2014 03:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Any continuous replication should not be a SPOF. The current behavior
guarantees that a two node sync cluster is a SPOF. The proposed behavior
removes that.
Again, if that's your goal, then use async replication.
I think I have gone about this the wrong way. Async does not meet the
technical or business requirements that I have. Sync does except that it
increases the possibility of an outage. That is the requirement I am
trying to address.
The purpose of sync rep is to know determinatively whether or not you
have lost data when disaster strikes. If knowing for certain isn't
important to you, then use async.
PostgreSQL Sync replication increases the possibility of an outage. That
is incorrect behavior.
I want sync because on the chance that the master goes down, I have as
much data as possible to fail over to. However, I can't use sync because
it increases the possibility that my business will not be able to
function on the chance that the standby goes down.
What's a bad idea is adding an auto-degrade option without any tools to
manage and monitor it, which is what this patch does by my reading. If
This we absolutely agree on.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary
act.", George Orwell
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
