| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
| Date: | 2008-09-12 20:06:21 |
| Message-ID: | 1221249981.12685.5.camel@huvostro |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 17:45 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 17:11 +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote:
>
> > Why not have a design where the slave is in control for it's own data ?
> > I mean the slave...
>
> The slave only exists because it is a copy of the master. If you try to
> "startup" a slave without first having taken a copy, how would you
> bootstrap the slave? With what? To what?
As I understand it, Csaba meant that slave would "bootstrap itself" by
connecting to master in some early phase of startup, requesting a
physical filesystem level copy of data, then commencing the startup in
Hot Standby mode.
If done that way, all the slave needs is a superuser level connection to
master database.
Of course this can also be done using little hot standby startup script
from slave, if shell access to master is provided,.
------------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-09-12 20:12:05 | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-12 19:55:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery |