On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Synchronous replication implies that a commit should wait. This wait is
> > experienced by the transaction, not by other parts of the system. If we
> > define robustness at the standby level then robustness depends upon
> > unseen administrators, as well as the current up/down state of standbys.
> > This is action-at-a-distance in its worst form.
>
> Maybe, but I can't help thinking people are going to want some form of
> this.
> The case where someone wants to do sync rep to the machine in
> the next rack over and async rep to a server at a remote site seems
> too important to ignore.
The use case of "machine in the next rack over and async rep to a server
at a remote site" *is* important, but you give no explanation as to why
that implies "per-standby" is the solution to it.
If you read the rest of my email, you'll see that I have explained the
problems "per-standby" settings would cause.
Please don't be so quick to claim it is me ignoring anything.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
