On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The primary is running with allow_standalone_primary = on. There
> is only one (synchronous) standby connected.
OK. Explicitly configured to allow the master to report as commited
stuff which isn't on a/any slave.
> 7. New primary doesn't have some transactions committed to the
> client, i.e., transaction lost happens!!
And this is a surprise?
I'm not saying there isn't a better way to to sequence/control a
shutdown to make this risk less, but isn't that the whole point of the
"allow_standalone_primary" debate/option?
"If there isn't a sync slave for whatever reason, just march on, I'll
deal with the transactions that are committed and not replicated some
other way".
I guess complaining that it shouldn't be possible to "just march on
when no sync slave is available" is one possible way oof "dealing
with" them ;-)
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.