On 01/24/2014 12:47 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> ISTM the consensus is that we need better monitoring/administration
> interfaces so that people can script the behavior they want in external
> tools. Also, a new synchronous apply replication mode would be handy,
> but that'd be a whole different patch. We don't have a patch on the
> table that we could consider committing any time soon, so I'm going to
> mark this as rejected in the commitfest app.
I don't feel that "we'll never do auto-degrade" is determinative;
several hackers were for auto-degrade, and they have a good use-case
argument. However, we do have consensus that we need more scaffolding
than this patch supplies in order to make auto-degrade *safe*.
I encourage the submitter to resumbit and improved version of this patch
(one with more monitorability) for 9.5 CF1. That'll give us a whole
dev cycle to argue about it.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com