On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich)
> <harald.kolb@nsn.com> wrote:
> > In our use case it's important to have a short failover time.
> > So everything what keeps the time low, would be good to have.
>
> Yes. I think that it's a matter of priority.
Reducing failover time should be the subject of another patch, not
something to be included in synch rep. That will just make patch bigger
and harder to commit.
Fast failover is important and we should eventually do it, even plan it
for next release, but it should not be a priority (ahead of or same as
sync rep).
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support