> Please, stop arguing on all of this: I don't think that adding an > option will hurt anybody (specially because the work was already done > by someone), we are not asking to change how the things work, we just > want an option to decided whether we want it to freeze on standby > disconnection, or if we want it to continue automatically... is that > asking so much?
The objection is that, *given the way synchronous replication currently works*, having that kind of an option would make the "synchronous" setting fairly meaningless. The only benefit that synchronous replication gives you is the guarantee that a write on the master is also on the standby. If you remove that guarantee, you are using asynchronous replication, even if the setting says synchronous. I think what you really want is a separate "auto-degrade" setting. That is, a setting which says "if no synchronous standby is present, auto-degrade to async/standalone, and start writing a bunch of warning messages to the logs and whenever anyone runs a synchronous transaction". That's an approach which makes some sense, but AFAICT somewhat different from the proposed patch. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
