On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com> wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 12:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> Well, the problem also exists if add it as an internal database
>> feature --- how long do we wait to consider the standby dead, how do
>> we inform administrators, etc.
>
>
> True. Though if there is no secondary connected, either because it's not
> there yet, or because it disconnected, that's an easy check. It's the
> network lag/stall detection that's tricky.
Well, yes... but how does PostgreSQL currently note its "main
synchronous standby" went away and that it have to use another standby
and synchronous? How long does it takes it to note that?
>
>
>> I don't think anyone says the feature is useless, but is isn't going
>> to be a simple boolean either.
>
>
> Oh $Deity no. I'd never suggest that. I just tend to be overly verbose, and
> sometimes my intent gets lost in the rambling as I try to explain my
> perspective. I apologize if it somehow came across that anyone could just
> flip a switch and have it work.
>
> My C is way too rusty, or I'd be writing an extension right now to do this,
> or be looking over that patch I linked to originally to make suitable
> adaptations. I know I talk about how relatively handy DRBD is, but it's also
> a gigantic PITA since it has to exist underneath the actual filesystem. :)
>
>
> --
> Shaun Thomas
> OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
> 312-444-8534
> sthomas@optionshouse.com
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related
> to this email
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers