On 2015-07-02 11:10:27 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> If we're always going to be polling the replicas for furthest ahead,
> then why bother implementing quorum synch at all? That's the basic
> question I'm asking. What does it buy us that we don't already have?
What do those topic have to do with each other? A standby fundamentally
can be further ahead than what the primary knows about. So you can't do
very much with that knowledge on the master anyway?
> I'm serious, here. Without any additional information on synch state at
> failure time, I would never use quorum synch. If there's someone on
> this thread who *would*, let's speak to their use case and then we can
> actually get the feature right. Anyone?
How would you otherwise ensure that your data is both on a second server
in the same DC and in another DC? Which is a pretty darn common desire?
Greetings,
Andres Freund