Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

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