On 01/10/2014 04:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 01/10/2014 04:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Adrian,
>>
>> * Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@gmail.com) wrote:
>>> On 01/10/2014 04:25 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>>> * Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@gmail.com) wrote:
>>>>> A) Change the existing sync mode to allow the master and standby
>>>>> fall out of sync should a standby fall over.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that anyone is argueing for this..
>>>
>>> Looks like here, unless I am really missing the point:
>>
>> Elsewhere in the thread, JD agreed that having it as an independent
>> option was fine.
>
> Yes. I am fine with an independent option.
I missed that. What confused me and seems to be generally confusing is
the overloading of the term sync:
"Proposed behavior:
db01->sync->db02 "
In my mind if that is an independent option it should have different
name. I propose Schrödinger:)
>
> JD
>
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com