Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>
> I think that the #2 problem which is Josh pointed out seems to be solved;
> 1. I need to ensure that data is replicated to X places.
> 2. I need to *know* which places data was synchronously replicated
> to when the master goes down.
> And we can address #1 problem using quorum commit.
>
> Thought?
I agree. The knowledge of which servers where in sync(#2) would not actually
help us determine the new master and quorum solves #1.
-----
Beena Emerson
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/Support-for-N-synchronous-standby-servers-take-2-tp5849384p5856459.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
