On 2015-07-02 11:10:27 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > If we're always going to be polling the replicas for furthest ahead, > then why bother implementing quorum synch at all? That's the basic > question I'm asking. What does it buy us that we don't already have?
What do those topic have to do with each other? A standby fundamentally can be further ahead than what the primary knows about. So you can't do very much with that knowledge on the master anyway? > I'm serious, here. Without any additional information on synch state at > failure time, I would never use quorum synch. If there's someone on > this thread who *would*, let's speak to their use case and then we can > actually get the feature right. Anyone? How would you otherwise ensure that your data is both on a second server in the same DC and in another DC? Which is a pretty darn common desire? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
