On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:42 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Yes, this is essentially the same thing that you were arguing against > above. Perhaps you are right, and there are no people who would want > synchronous replay, but not synchronous commit.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology here, but if not, I find this theory wildly implausible. *Most* people want read-your-writes behavior. *Few* people want to wait for a dead standby. The only application of the later is when even a tiny risk of transaction loss is unacceptable, but the former has all kinds of clustering-related uses. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
