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.
> If you are willing to let the new master run without a
> standby, why are you not willing to let the
> the old one do so if it were the standby which failed in the first place?
Doesn't follow.
regards, tom lane