Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 11:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We can *not* allow the slave to replay WAL ahead of what is known
>> committed to disk on the master. The only way to make that safe
>> is the compare-notes-and-ship-WAL-back approach that Robert mentioned.
>>
>> If you feel that decoupling WAL application is absolutely essential
>> to have a credible feature, then you'd better bite the bullet and
>> start working on the ship-WAL-back code.
> Why not just failover?
Guaranteed failover is another large piece we don't have.
regards, tom lane
