On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
>> I don't understand why this is controversial. In the current code, if
>> you have a master and a single sync standby, and the master disappears
>> and you promote the standby, now the new master is running *without a
>> standby*.
>
> If you configured it to use sync rep, it won't accept any transactions
> until you give it a standby. If you configured it not to, then it's you
> that has changed the replication requirements.
Sure, but isn't that a very common usage? Maybe my perceptions are
out of whack, but I commonly hear about fail-over and rarely hear
about using more than one slave so that you can fail over and still
have a positive number of slaves.
Cheers,
Jeff