On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 08:04:37PM +0100, Julian Scarfe wrote:
> But even without a cast iron guarantee, I still think a best-effort 
> delivery of a "you are no longer master" event would be a useful feature 
> that would offer minimal data loss, for example by locking the set -- 
> failover is, after all, a potentially lossy event anyway.
> 
> I'm trying very hard to avoid the need to have yet another pair of servers 
> sitting between the clients and the database cluster handling nothing but 
> the "who's master" issue.

I understand what you're saying.  I think the problem is that others
(I among them) think that the extra servers potentially solve all (or
most of, anyway) the problems, and the proposal you're making comes
very close to a foot-gun: as soon as the option is added, someone
will start to depend on it in ways it can't be dependable.  Soon,
things'll be breaking for them, and they'll wonder why.  Others might
not agree with me, though.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
		--George Orwell