On 2 July 2015 at 19:50, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> So there's two parts to this: > > 1. I need to ensure that data is replicated to X places. > > 2. I need to *know* which places data was synchronously replicated to > when the master goes down. > > My entire point is that (1) alone is useless unless you also have (2). > And do note that I'm talking about information on the replica, not on > the master, since in any failure situation we don't have the old master > around to check. > You might *think* you know, but given we are in this situation because of an unexpected failure, it seems strange to specifically avoid checking before you proceed. Bacon not Aristotle. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
