On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 15:31 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > The above case is one where I can see your point and it does sound
> > easier in that case. But I then think: "What happens after failover?".
> > We would then need to have 12 different standby.conf files, one on each
> > standby that describes what the setup would look like if that standby
> > became the master. And guess what, every time we made a change on the
> > master, you'd need to re-edit all 12 standby.conf files to reflect the
> > new configuration. So we're still back to having to edit in multiple
> > places, ISTM.
>
> Unless we can make the standby.conf files identical on all servers in
> the group. If we can do that, then conf file management utilities,
> fileshares, or a simple automated rsync could easily take care of things.
Would prefer table.
> But ... any setup which involves each standby being *required* to have a
> different configuration on each standby server, which has to be edited
> separately, is going to be fatally difficult to manage for anyone who
> has more than a couple of standbys. So I'd like to look at what it
> takes to get away from that.
Agreed.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
