On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Alexander Björnhagen
<alex.bjornhagen@gmail.com> wrote:
> At this point I feel that this new functionality might be a bit
> overkill for postgres, maybe it's better to stay lean and mean rather
> than add a controversial feature like this.
I don't understand why this is controversial. In the current code, if
you have a master and a single sync standby, and the master disappears
and you promote the standby, now the new master is running *without a
standby*. If you are willing to let the new master run without a
standby, why are you not willing to let the
the old one do so if it were the standby which failed in the first place?
Cheers,
Jeff
