On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically
>> restart after a crash, insisting on a fail-over instead (or a manual
>> forcing of recovery)?
>
> I suppose that would work, but I think Simon's idea is better: don't
> let the slave replay the WAL until either (a) it's promoted or (b) the
> master finishes the fsync. That boils down to adding some more
> handshaking to the replication protocol, I think.
It would be 8 bytes on every data message sent to the standby.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
