On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> wrote: > Of course, it doesn't make sense to wait-forever on *every* standby that > ever gets added. Quorum commit is required, yes (and that's what this > thread is about, IIRC). But with quorum commit, adding a standby only > improves availability, but certainly doesn't block the master in any > way.
But, even with quorum commit, if you choose wait-forever option, failover would decrease availability. Right after the failover, no standby has connected to new master, so if quorum >= 1, all the transactions must wait for a while. Basically we need to take a base backup from new master to start the standbys and make them connect to new master. This might take a long time. Since transaction commits cannot advance for that time, availability would goes down. Or you think that wait-forever option is applied only when the standby goes down? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
