Re: Standalone synchronous master

On 1/9/14, 9:01 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Yeah, and I think that the logging command that was suggested allows
>> >for that*if configured correctly*.
> *But*  for relying on this, we would also need to make logging
> *synchronous*,
> which would probably not go down well with many people, as it makes things
> even more fragile from availability viewpoint (and slower as well).

Not really... you only care about monitoring performance when the standby has gone AWOL *and* you haven't sent a
notificationyet. Once you've notified once you're done.
 

So in this case the master won't go down unless you have a double fault: standby goes down AND you can't get to your
monitoring.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net