Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20120713145243.GB15443@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux (Hampus Wessman <hampus@hampuswessman.se>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:12:56AM +0200, Hampus Wessman wrote: > How you decide what to do with the servers on failures isn't that > important here, really. You can probably run e.g. Pacemaker on 3+ > machines and have it check for quorums to accomplish this. That's a > good approach at least. You can still have only 2 database servers > (for cost reasons), if you want. PostgreSQL could have all this > built-in, but I don't think it sounds overly useful to only be able > to disable synchronous replication on the primary after a timeout. > Then you can never safely do a failover to the secondary, because > you can't be sure synchronous replication was active on the failed > primary... So how about this for a Postgres TODO: Add configuration variable to allow Postgres to disable synchronousreplication after a specified timeout, and add variableto alertadministrators of the change. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: