On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > that is exactly my point - if have no guarantee that your SYNC standby is > actually sync there is no use for it being used in business cases that > require sync replication. > If we cannot support that usecase I would either like to see us restricting > to only one sync capable standby or by putting a big CAVEAT into the docs > saying that sync replication in pg only is a hint and not a guarantee that > might or might not be honored in the case of more than one standby.
I think it's clear that different people want to different things. I understand Simon's point, but I think the point Stefan and Jeff are making is equally valid. I think the solution is: - Simon gets to implement his version first because he's writing the code. If someone else writes the code then they get to pick. - Whoever wants to make the other thing work can write a patch for that after. - The docs should not allege that either setup is preferable to the other, because there is not now and will never be consensus that this is in fact true. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
