Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> If we define robustness at the standby level then robustness
>> depends upon unseen administrators, as well as the current
>> up/down state of standbys. This is action-at-a-distance in its
>> worst form.
>
> Maybe, but I can't help thinking people are going to want some
> form of this. The case where someone wants to do sync rep to the
> machine in the next rack over and async rep to a server at a
> remote site seems too important to ignore.
I think there may be a terminology issue here -- I took "configure
by standby" to mean that *at the master* you would specify rules for
each standby. I think Simon took it to mean that each standby would
define the rules for replication to it. Maybe this issue can
resolve gracefully with a bit of clarification?
-Kevin
