| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marc Schablewski <ms(at)clickware(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reliability of WAL replication |
| Date: | 2007-10-23 12:07:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1193141247.21016.35.camel@PCD12478 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Marc,
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:58 +0200, Marc Schablewski wrote:
> We had some corrupted data files in the past (missing clog, see
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-07/msg00124.php) and are
> thinking about setting up a warm standby system using WAL replication.
>
> Would an error like the one we had appear in WAL and would it be
> replicated too? Or is there some kind of consistency check, that
> prevents broken WAL from being restored?
Here we had WAL based replication in place some time ago, and the result
are somewhat mixed: in one case the corruption was replicated, other
times it was not... I guess it has to do with where the corruption
occurred, and I have a feeling the first case (corruption replicated)
was some postgres corner case reacting badly on kill -9 and alike, the
second case (corruption not replicated) was file system corruption. I
didn't run WAL based replication for a while, so I don't know what have
changed in it lately...
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nis Jørgensen | 2007-10-23 12:18:20 | Re: SQL spec/implementation question: UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Martin Marques | 2007-10-23 12:02:38 | Re: Bitmap Heap scan 8.1/8.2 |