On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 02.03.2011 12:40, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> allow_standalone_primary seems to need to be better through than it is
>> now, yet neither of us think its worth having.
>>
>> If the people that want it can think it through a little better then it
>> might make this release, but I propose to remove it from this current
>> patch to allow us to commit with greater certainty and fewer bugs.
>
> If you leave it out, then let's rename the feature to "semi-synchronous
> replication" or such. The point of synchronous replication is
> zero-data-loss, and you don't achieve that with allow_standalone_primary=on.
I think that'd just be adding confusion. Replication will still be
synchronous; it'll just be more likely to be not happening when you
think it is.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company