On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 15:38 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp.phlo.org@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Well, you either wait for master to come up again and restart, or you
> >> flip into normal mode and keep running queries from there. You aren't
> >> prevented from using the server, except by your own refusal to
> >> failover.
> >
> > Very true. However, that "refusal" as you put it might actually be the
> > most sensible thing to do in a lot of setups. Not everyone needs extreme
> > up-time guarantees, and for those people setting up, testing and
> > *continuously* exercising fail-over is just not worth the effort.
> > Especially since fail-over with asynchronous replication is tricky to
> > get right if you want to avoid data loss.
>
> To say nothing that the replica might not be a suitable master at all.
> It could be running on inferior hardware or be on a separate network
> perhaps too slow to reach from production services.
>
> HA is not the only use case for HS or even the main one in my experience
I can invent scenarios in which all the outstanding issues give
problems. What I have to do is balance which of those is more likely and
which have useful workarounds. This is about priority and in particular,
my priority. IMHO my time would be misplaced to work upon this issue,
though I will check that other users feel that way also.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com