On 01/09/2014 12:05 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * 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... You can have only one name in synchronous_standby_names and have multiple slaves connecting with that name
Also, I can attest that I have had clients who want exactly that - a system stop until admin intervention in case of a designated sync standby failing. And they actually run more than one standby, they just want to make sure that sync rep to 2nd data center always happens. Cheers -- Hannu Krosing PostgreSQL Consultant Performance, Scalability and High Availability 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
