On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2013-10-08 15:07:02 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > I attached the v12 patch which have modified based on above suggestions.
>> >
>>
>> There are still some parts of this design/patch which I am concerned about.
>>
>> 1. The design clubs synchronous standby and failback safe standby rather
>> very tightly. IIRC this is based on the feedback you received early, so my
>> apologies for raising it again so late.
>
> It is my impression that there still are several people having pretty
> fundamental doubts about this approach in general. From what I remember
> neither Heikki, Simon, Tom nor me were really convinced about this
> approach.
>
Thank you for comment.
We are thinking that this approach can solve the real problem.
Actually we have confirm the effect of this approach. The master
server flushes data page to disk
after the master server received reply from the standby server.
If you have concern or doubt in technical side, Could you tell me it?
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko
