Re: Standbys which don't synch to disk?
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Standbys which don't synch to disk? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4DCAD9F2.4030905@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Standbys which don't synch to disk? (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Standbys which don't synch to disk?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert, > > That WAL has effectively disappeared from the > > master, but is still present on the slave. Now the master comes up > > and starts processing read-write transactions again, and generates a > > new and different 1kB of WAL. Hilarity ensues, because the two > > machines are now out of step with each other. Yeah, you'd need some kind of instant failover and STONITH. That is, any interruption on the master would be a failover situation. While that seems conceivable for crashes, consider that a planned restart of the master might be an issue, and an OOM-kill would certainly be. > > You could possibly fix this by making provision for the master to > > connect to the slave on start-up and stream WAL "backwards" from slave > > to master. That'd be pretty spiffy. Ouch, now you're making my head hurt. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: