On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure. If you give the standbys names, then if people change the
> names, they'll have to update their configuration. But I can't see
> that as an argument against doing it. You can remove the possibility
> that someone will have a hassle if they rename a server by not
> allowing them to give it a name in the first place, but that doesn't
> seem like a win from a usability perspective.
I'm just comparing your idea (i.e., set synchronous_standbys on
each possible master) with my idea (i.e., set replication_mode on
each standby). Though your idea has the advantage described in the
following post, it seems to make the setup of the standbys more
complicated, as I described. So I'm trying to generate better idea.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-08/msg00007.php
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
