Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby
От | Thomas Kellerer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | i17itq$g11$1@dough.gmane.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby (Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby
Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby |
Список | pgsql-admin |
Hi, Rob Wultsch wrote on 09.07.2010 18:14: >> I am aware that I can use the 9.0 standby server for read only queries, but >> that is (currently) not something we need >> > > Taking SQL backups without impacting the master might be something to consider. Interesting point. Thanks for mentioning that. >> I'm wondering about the differences when the failover situation occurs. From >> reading the docs, I get the impression that 9.0's streaming replication >> might be faster than 8.4's WAL shipping, but otherwise offers the same level >> of data protection. >> >> Is there a difference in how much data could potentially be lost in case of >> a failover? > > 9.0 has streaming replication so much less data would likely be lost. > WAL logs are generally 16 MB and often shipped when completed. So my assumption is correct that streaming replication does mean that in case of a failover less transactions are lost? Regards Thomas
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: