| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "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 23:24:34 |
| Message-ID: | 52CDDE32.1050104@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/08/2014 03:18 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Do you really feel that a WARNING and increasing the docs to point
> out that three systems are necessary, particularly under the 'high
> availability' documentation and options, is a bad idea? I fail to see
> how that does anything but clarify the use-case for our users.
I think the warning is dumb, and that the suggested documentation change
is insufficient. If we're going to clarify things, then we need to have
a full-on several-page doc showing several examples of different sync
rep configurations and explaining their tradeoffs (including the
different sync modes and per-transaction sync). Anything short of that
is just going to muddy the waters further.
Mind you, someone needs to take a machete to the HA section of the docs
anyway.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-08 23:27:21 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-01-08 23:18:26 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |