Re: Synchronization levels in SR

On 09/07/2010 04:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> In theory, that's true, but if we do that, then there's an even bigger
> problem: the slave might have replayed WAL ahead of the master
> location; therefore the slave is now corrupt and a new base backup
> must be taken.

The slave isn't corrupt. It would suffice to "late abort" committed 
transactions the master doesn't know about.

However, I realize that undoing of WAL isn't something that's 
implemented (nor planned). So it's probably easier to forward the master 
in such a case.

> Yeah, I hope we'll get there eventually.

Understood. Thanks.

Markus Wanner