* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2014-01-08 17:56:37 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > > That's why you should configure a second standby as another (candidate) > > > synchronous replica, also listed in synchronous_standby_names. > > > > Perhaps we should stress in the docs that this is, in fact, the *only* > > reasonable mode in which to run with sync rep on? Where there are > > multiple replicas, because otherwise Drake is correct that you'll just > > end up having both nodes go offline if the slave fails. > > Which, as it happens, is actually documented.
I'm aware, my point was simply that we should state, up-front in
25.2.7.3 *and* where we document synchronous_standby_names, that it
requires at least three servers to be involved to be a workable
solution.
Perhaps we should even log a warning if only one value is found in
synchronous_standby_names...
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
