On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 20:42 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > If you want the behavior where the master doesn't acknowledge a > commit > to the client until the standby (or all standbys, or one of them > etc.) > acknowledges it, even if the standby is not currently connected, the > master needs to know what standby servers exist. *That's* why > synchronous replication needs a list of standby servers in the master. > > If you're willing to downgrade to a mode where commit waits for > acknowledgment only from servers that are currently connected, then > you don't need any new configuration files.
As I keep pointing out, waiting for an acknowledgement from something that isn't there might just take a while. The only guarantee that provides is that you will wait a long time. Is my data more safe? No. To get zero data loss *and* continuous availability, you need two standbys offering sync rep and reply-to-first behaviour. You don't need standby registration to achieve that. > But that's not what I call synchronous replication, it doesn't give > you the guarantees that > textbook synchronous replication does. Which textbook? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
