* Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> [081215 07:32]: > > In fact, waiting for reply from standby server before acknowledging a commit > > to the client is a bit pointless otherwise. It puts you in a strange > > situation, where you're waiting for the commits in normal operation, but if > > there's a network glitch or the standby goes down, you're willing to go > > ahead without it. You get a high guarantee that your data is up-to-date in > > the standby, except when it isn't. Which isn't much of a guarantee. > > It protects you against a catastrophic loss of the primary, which is a > non-trivial consideration. At the risk of being ghoulish, imagine > that you are a large financial company headquartered in the world > trade center.
This was exacty my original point - I want the transaction durably on the slave before the commit is acknowledged (to build as much local redunancy as I can), but I certatily *don't* want to loose the ability to use WAL archiving, because I ship my WAL off-site too... The ability to have an extra local copy is good. But I'm certainly not going to want to give up my off-site backup/WAL for it... a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
