On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 17:37 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 01/01/2011 05:28 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > Stefan Kaltenbrunner<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
> >> well you keep saying that but to be honest I cannot really even see a
> >> usecase for me - what is "only a random one of a set of servers is sync at
> >> any time and I don't really know which one".
> >
> > It looks easy enough to get to know which one it is. Surely the primary
> > knows and could update something visible through a system view for
> > users? This as been asked for before and I was thinking there was a
> > consensus on this.
>
> well as jeff janes already said - anything that requires the master to
> still exist is not useful for a desaster.
Nobody has suggested that the master needs to still exist after a
disaster.
> Consider the now often
> mentioned 2 sync standby scenario with one standby in the same location
> and one in a secondary location.
> If you have a desaster(fire,water,explosion,admin fail,...) at the
> primary location and you have no access to either the master or the
> standby you will never be sure that the standby on the secondary
> location is actually "in sync" - it could be but you will never know if
> you lost that 1B$ invoice just commited on the master and the closeby
> standby and therefor confirmed to the client...
I've never suggested you configure your systems like that. It would of
course be stupid.
This is not a sensible technical discussion. I'll go back to coding.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
