Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> I'm aware, my point was simply that we should state, up-front in
> 25.2.7.3 *and* where we document synchronous_standby_names, that it
> requires at least three servers to be involved to be a workable
> solution.
It only requires that if your requirements include both redundant
data storage and tolerating single-node failure. Now admittedly,
most people who want replication want it so they can have failure
tolerance, but I don't think it's insane to say that you want to
stop accepting writes if either node of a 2-node server drops out.
If you can only afford two nodes, and you need guaranteed redundancy
for business reasons, then that's where you end up.
Or in short, I'm against throwing warnings for this kind of setup.
I do agree that we need some doc improvements, since this is
evidently not clear enough yet.
regards, tom lane