| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2014-01-08 23:05:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20140108230547.GI2686@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 2014-01-08 17:56:37 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > > That's why you should configure a second standby as another (candidate)
> > > synchronous replica, also listed in synchronous_standby_names.
> >
> > Perhaps we should stress in the docs that this is, in fact, the *only*
> > reasonable mode in which to run with sync rep on? Where there are
> > multiple replicas, because otherwise Drake is correct that you'll just
> > end up having both nodes go offline if the slave fails.
>
> Which, as it happens, is actually documented.
I'm aware, my point was simply that we should state, up-front in
25.2.7.3 *and* where we document synchronous_standby_names, that it
requires at least three servers to be involved to be a workable
solution.
Perhaps we should even log a warning if only one value is found in
synchronous_standby_names...
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-01-08 23:15:21 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-08 23:04:38 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |