Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> writes:
> ..and how do you make sure you are not marking your second standby as
> degraded just because it's currently lagging?
Well, in sync rep, a standby that's not able to stay under the timeout
is degraded. Full stop. The presence of the timeout (or its value not
being -1) means that the admin has chosen this definition.
> Effectively degrading the
> utterly needed one, because your first standby has just bitten the
> dust?
Well, now you have a worst case scenario: first standby is dead and the
remaining one was not able to keep up. You have lost all your master's
failover replacements.
> And how do you prevent the split brain situation in case the master dies
> shortly after these events, but fails to come up again immediately?
Same old story. Either you're able to try and fix the master so that you
don't lose any data and don't even have to check for that, or you take a
risk and start from a non synced standby. It's all availability against
durability again.
What I really want us to be able to provide is the clear facts so that
whoever has to take the decision is able to. Meaning, here, that it
should be easy to see that neither the standby are in sync at this
point.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
