Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:52 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 09:48 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > What is complicated about having the archive on the standby server?
> >
>
> If the storage on the standby fails, you would lose the archive, right?

As well as the standby itself presumably. Either way you need to restart
from a base backup.

> I think there's a use case for having two identical servers, and just
> setting them up to replicate synchronously. Many of these use-cases
> might not even care much about write performance or the duplicity of
> maintaining two copies of the archive.

Yes, that's what I've said also.

> They might care a lot about PITR
> though, and that would be impossible if you lose the archive.

Agreed, yes we need it as an option.

> Do you see a cost to allowing all of the options listed by Fujii Masao?

I haven't argued in favour of removing any options, so not sure what you
mean. I have asked for an explanation of why certain features are needed
so we can judge whether there is a simpler way of providing everything
required. It may not exist.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support