| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Date: | 2008-12-23 09:28:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1230024487.4793.737.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 18:00 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > I don't get this argument. Why would we care what happens on the
> failed server?
>
> It's because, in the future, I'd like to use the data on the failed
> server when making it catch up with new primary. This desire might be
> violated by the inconsistency which I described.
I don't really understand why you would put something in there that has
no use at all. Why make every server in the world do extra
synchronisation?
Whatever you build in the future can include this, if that is still a
required point at the time you add the new feature.
Are you thinking about switchover rather than failover? I'm sure a
graceful switchover doesn't need this.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2008-12-23 09:45:42 | Re: Lock conflict behavior? |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2008-12-23 09:00:47 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |