Re: Synchronous replication
| От | Dimitri Fontaine |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Synchronous replication |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | E3662D1B-98F0-4CA4-A23B-5DE4AF2221E7@hi-media.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Synchronous replication (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Synchronous replication
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Le 16 juil. 2010 à 12:43, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> a écrit :
On 16/07/10 10:40, Fujii Masao wrote:So we should always prevent the standby from applying any WAL in pg_xlogunless walreceiver is in progress. That is, if there is no WAL availablein the archive, the standby ignores pg_xlog and starts walreceiverprocess to request for WAL streaming.
That completely defeats the purpose of storing streamed WAL in pg_xlog in the first place. The reason it's written and fsync'd to pg_xlog is that if the standby subsequently crashes, you can use the WAL from pg_xlog to reapply the WAL up to minRecoveryPoint. Otherwise you can't start up the standby anymore.
I guess we know for sure that this point has been fsync()ed on the Master, or that we could arrange it so that we know that?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: