Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux

On 07/12/2012 12:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Well, the problem also exists if add it as an internal database
> feature --- how long do we wait to consider the standby dead, how do
> we inform administrators, etc.

True. Though if there is no secondary connected, either because it's not
there yet, or because it disconnected, that's an easy check. It's the
network lag/stall detection that's tricky.

> I don't think anyone says the feature is useless, but is isn't going
> to be a simple boolean either.

Oh $Deity no. I'd never suggest that. I just tend to be overly verbose,
and sometimes my intent gets lost in the rambling as I try to explain my
perspective. I apologize if it somehow came across that anyone could
just flip a switch and have it work.

My C is way too rusty, or I'd be writing an extension right now to do
this, or be looking over that patch I linked to originally to make
suitable adaptations. I know I talk about how relatively handy DRBD is,
but it's also a gigantic PITA since it has to exist underneath the
actual filesystem. :)

--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email