Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I don't see this as needing any implementation any more complicated than
> the usual way such timeouts are handled. Note how long you've been
> trying to reach the standby. Default to -1 for forever. And if you hit
> the timeout, mark the standby as degraded and force them to do a proper
> resync when they disconnect. Once that's done, then they can re-enter
> sync rep mode again, via the same process a new node would have done so.
Well, actually, that's *considerably* more complicated than just a
timeout. How are you going to "mark the standby as degraded"? The
standby can't keep that information, because it's not even connected
when the master makes the decision. ISTM that this requires
1. a unique identifier for each standby (not just role names that
multiple standbys might share);
2. state on the master associated with each possible standby -- not just
the ones currently connected.
Both of those are perhaps possible, but the sense I have of the
discussion is that people want to avoid them.
Actually, #2 seems rather difficult even if you want it. Presumably
you'd like to keep that state in reliable storage, so it survives master
crashes. But how you gonna commit a change to that state, if you just
lost every standby (suppose master's ethernet cable got unplugged)?
Looks to me like it has to be reliable non-replicated storage. Leaving
aside the question of how reliable it can really be if not replicated,
it's still the case that we have noplace to put such information given
the WAL-is-across-the-whole-cluster design.
regards, tom lane