Re: Standalone synchronous master

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but
> if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about
> what a successful return from a commit request means.� Sooner or
> later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will
> lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is
> missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed.

I'm for not caving.  I think people who are asking for this don't
actually understand what they'd be getting.
        regards, tom lane