Re: Standalone synchronous master

Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:\
> I don't understand why this is controversial.
I'm having a hard time seeing why this is considered a feature.  It
seems to me what is being proposed is a mode with no higher
integrity guarantee than asynchronous replication, but latency
equivalent to synchronous replication.  I can see where it's
tempting to want to think it gives something more in terms of
integrity guarantees, but when I think it through, I'm not really
seeing any actual benefit.
If this fed into something such that people got jabber message,
emails, or telephone calls any time it switched between synchronous
and stand-alone mode, that would make it a built-in monitoring,
fail-over, and alert system -- which *would* have some value.  But
in the past we've always recommended external tools for such
features.
-Kevin