On 02.03.2011 21:48, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 16:53 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 02.03.2011 12:40, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> allow_standalone_primary seems to need to be better through than it is
>>> now, yet neither of us think its worth having.
>>>
>>> If the people that want it can think it through a little better then it
>>> might make this release, but I propose to remove it from this current
>>> patch to allow us to commit with greater certainty and fewer bugs.
>>
>> If you leave it out, then let's rename the feature to "semi-synchronous
>> replication" or such. The point of synchronous replication is
>> zero-data-loss, and you don't achieve that with allow_standalone_primary=on.
>
> The reason I have suggested leaving that parameter out is because the
> behaviour is not fully specified and Yeb has reported cases that don't
> (yet) make sense. If you want to fully specify it then we could yet add
> it, assuming we have time.
Fair enough. All I'm saying is that if we end up shipping without that
parameter (implying allow_standalone_primary=on), we need to call the
feature something else. The GUCs and code can probably stay as it is,
but we shouldn't use the term "synchronous replication" in the
documentation, and release notes and such.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
