On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:40 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > I agree that #4 should be done last, but it will be needed, not in the
> > least by your employer ;-) . I don't see any obvious way to make #4
> > compatible with any significant query load on the slave, but in general
> > I'd think that users of #4 are far more concerned with 0% data loss than
> > they are with getting the slave to run read queries.
>
> Since #2 and #3 are enough for 0% data loss, I think that such users
> would be more concerned about what results are visible in the standby.
> No?
Please add #4 also. You can do that easily at the same time as #2 and
#3, and it will leave me free to fix the perceived conflict problems.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
