Re: "Hot standby"?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: "Hot standby"? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070908111413r1574b24fj765600d253a0c1ec@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: "Hot standby"? (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: "Hot standby"?
Re: "Hot standby"? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Josh Berkus<josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > So really, the "streaming replication" patch should be called "hot > standby", No. AIUI, hot standby means that when your primary falls over, the secondary automatically promotes itself and takes over. It requires things like heartbeat monitoring and STONITH and is unrelated to anything we currently have under consideration. > and the "hot standby" patch should be called "read only slaves"? Yes. > And *why* can't we call it log-based replication? Well, we can call it anything we want. For example, up until now we've been calling it "hot standby", even though that's clearly wrong. :-) But on the merits: log-based replication is, I think, what we already have. Both of these patches do things that make it better. Streaming replication (fka synch rep) makes it more nearly real-time, and read-only slaves (fka hot standby) makes the standby server more useful. But neither is ADDING log-based replication, they're both IMPROVING it, in different ways. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: