Re: How should pg_standby get over the gap of timeline?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How should pg_standby get over the gap of timeline?
Date: 2008-11-21 17:09:23
Message-ID: 1227287363.7015.96.camel@hp_dx2400_1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 22:41 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:

> In the current Synch Rep patch, the standby cannot catch up with the
> primary which has a bigger timeline. So, whenever making the standby
> catch up, a fresh base backup is required. This is obviously undesirable,
> and I'd like to get rid of this restriction.
>
> Postgres itself can recover up to a bigger timeline without a base
> backup. The remaining problem is that pg_standby cannot get over the
> gap of timeline. It continues waiting for the XLOG file with out-of-date
> timeline, and redo doesn't progress.

We've discussed this before. My answer is the same: you are assuming it
is safe to re-enter recovery, which is not correct (currently). You are
also assuming that taking a base backup is an expensive operation - it
need not be so if you simply move only the files/data that have changed,
e.g. rsync.

So if you want this to work, hacking pg_standby is not the way to do it.
But I'm not convinced there is a problem worth solving.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-11-21 17:21:51 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Silence compiler warning about ignored return value.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-11-21 17:07:34 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Silence compiler warning about ignored return value.