Re: remove pg_standby?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: remove pg_standby? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZ3vu-JiokPOF0vtQrtf7hRMOPWKCVFewwM_VhexcPTzg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: remove pg_standby? (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> Per document, >>> >>> ------------------ >>> In fast failover, the server is brought up immediately. Any WAL files >>> in the archive that have not yet been applied will be ignored, and all >>> transactions in those files are lost. To trigger a fast failover, >>> create a trigger file and write the word fast into it. pg_standby can >>> also be configured to execute a fast failover automatically if no new >>> WAL file appears within a defined interval. >>> ------------------ >> >> I thought we had that as a 9.4 feature, actually. Well wait ... that's >> for streaming. > > s/9.4/9.3? > > That's different from one we had in 9.3. Fast failover that pg_standby > supports is something like the feature that I was proposing at > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwHtvyDqKZaYWYA9zyyLEcAKiF5P0KpcpuNE_tsrGTFtQw@mail.gmail.com > that is, the feature which allows us to give up replaying remaining > WAL data for some reasons at the standby promotion. OTOH, fast > failover that was supported in 9.3 enables us to skip an end-of-recovery > checkpoint at the promotion and reduce the failover time. Calling those things by the same name is very confusing. The data-losing feature ought to be called "immediate failover" or something else more dangerous-sounding than "fast". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: