On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically
>>> restart after a crash, insisting on a fail-over instead (or a manual
>>> forcing
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically
>> restart after a crash, insisting on a fail-over instead (or a manual
>> forcing of recovery)?
>
> I suppose that would work, but I think Si
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes wrote:
The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically
restart after a crash,
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically
>>> restart after a crash, insisting on a fail-over instead (or a manual
>>> forcing
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically
>> restart after a crash, insisting on a fail-over instead (or a manual
>> forcing of recovery)?
>
> I suppose that would work, but I think Sim
On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes wrote:
> The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically
> restart after a crash, insisting on a fail-over instead (or a manual
> forcing of recovery)?
I suppose that would work, but I think Simon's idea is better: don't
let the slave replay the WAL until
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I admit to not having followed the discussion around the new mode for
>> synchronous_commit very closely, so my apologies if this has been
>> discussed and dismiseed - I blame failing to f
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I admit to not having followed the discussion around the new mode for
> synchronous_commit very closely, so my apologies if this has been
> discussed and dismiseed - I blame failing to find it int he archives
> ;)
>
> My understanding from
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:40, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I admit to not having followed the discussion around the new mode for
>> synchronous_commit very closely, so my apologies if this has been
>> discussed and dismiseed - I blame failing t
On Apr 19, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I admit to not having followed the discussion around the new mode for
> synchronous_commit very closely, so my apologies if this has been
> discussed and dismiseed - I blame failing to find it int he archives
> ;)
>
> My understanding from loo
I admit to not having followed the discussion around the new mode for
synchronous_commit very closely, so my apologies if this has been
discussed and dismiseed - I blame failing to find it int he archives
;)
My understanding from looking at the docs is that
synchronous_commit=remote_write will alw
11 matches
Mail list logo
