Re: Postgres Clustering Options
| От | Greg Smith | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Postgres Clustering Options | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4AFAFE68.60104@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | Postgres Clustering Options (David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		Re: Postgres Clustering Options
            		
            		 | 
		
| Список | pgsql-general | 
David Kerr wrote: > Postgres installed on a Cluster configured in active/passive (both pointing to the same SAN > (If PG or the OS fails we trigger a failover to the passive node) > Log shipping between that cluster and a single PG Instance off site. > Is this a common/reccomended method of handling clusterin with Postgres? google searches > basically point to using a replication based solution, which i don't think would meet my > performance demands. > The part I'm having trouble with here is how it is you expect to keep a remote node up to date with log-shipping, but then reject log-shipping based replication as not high enough performance for you? The classic problem with log-shipping in PostgreSQL is that you've got a single recovery process trying to replay the work of what many workers did on the master, and that can turn into a potential lag problem as volume spikes upwards. If you don't expect a standby is going to be able to keep up with your volume due to that issue, the remote one is going to be even worse though. -- Greg Smith greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: