Adrian,
* Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@gmail.com) wrote:
> A) Change the existing sync mode to allow the master and standby
> fall out of sync should a standby fall over.
I'm not sure that anyone is argueing for this..
> B) Create a new mode that does this without changing the existing sync mode.
>
> My two cents would be to implement B. Sync to me is a contract that
> master and standby are in sync at any point in time. Anything else
> should be called something else. Then it is up to the documentation
> to clearly point out the benefits/pitfalls. If you want to implement
> something as important as replication without reading the docs then
> the results are on you.
The issue is that there are folks who are argueing, essentially, that
"B" is worthless, wrong, and no one should want it and therefore we
shouldn't have it.
Thanks,
Stephen
