Greg
On 5-Aug-08, at 12:15 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> There is one really bad consequence of the oversimplified failover
> design that Simon proposes, which is that clients might try to fail
> over
> for reasons other than a primary server failure. (Think network
> partition.) You really want any such behavior to be managed
> centrally,
> IMHO.
The alternative to a cwnrallu managed failover system is one based
on a quorum system. At first glance it seems to me that would fit our
use case better. But the point remains that we would be better off
adopting a complete system than trying to reinvent one.
