| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Date: | 2009-01-28 20:16:15 |
| Message-ID: | 1233173775.5247.18.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> "my failover was 12 hours behind when I needed it to be 10 seconds
> behind and I lost a $1 million because of downtime of Postgres"
The same could be said for warm standby right now. Or Slony-I, for that
matter. I think that we can reasonably expect anyone implementing
asynchronous replication for HA to properly monitor the lag time.
There are many sources of latency in the process, so I don't think
anyone can expect 10 seconds without actually monitoring to verify what
the actual lag time is.
I apologize if my post is based on ignorance, I haven't followed your
patch as closely as others involved in this discussion.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-28 20:19:21 | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-28 20:13:21 | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |