On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:34 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 14:24, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> * it seems like overkill to not let clients to even connect when > >> allow_standalone_primary=off and no synchronous standbys are available. > >> What if you just want to run a read-only query? > > > > That's what Aidan requested, I agreed and so its there. You're using > > sync rep because of writes, so you have a read-write app. If you allow > > connections then half of the app will work, half will not. Half-working > > isn't very useful, as Aidan eloquently explained. If your app is all > > read-only you wouldn't be using sync rep anyway. That's the argument, > > but I've not got especially strong feelings it has to be this way. > > > > Perhaps discuss that on a separate thread? See what everyone thinks? > > I'll respond here once, and we'll see if more people want to comment > then we can move it :-) > > Doesn't this make a pretty strange assumption - namely that you have a > single application? We support multiple databases, and multiple users, > and multiple pretty much anything - in most cases, people deploy > multiple apps. (They may well be part of the same "solution" or > whatever you want to call it, but parts may well be readonly - like a > reporting app, or even just a monitoring client)
There are various problems whatever we do. If we don't like one way, we must balance that by judging what happens if we do things the other way. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ 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
