| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep Design |
| Date: | 2010-12-30 21:27:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1293744431.1892.26514.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 22:08 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 12/30/2010 10:01 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 15:51 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> >> Still, one thing that has me concerned is that in the case of two
> >> slaves, you don't know which one is the more up-to-date one if you
> >> need to failover. It'd be nice if you could just guarantee they both
> >> are...
> >
> > Regrettably, nobody can know that, without checking.
>
> how exactly would you check? - this seems like something that needs to
> be done from the SQL and the CLI level and also very well documented
> (which I cannot see in your proposal).
This is a proposal for sync rep, not multi-node failover. I'm definitely
not going to widen the scope of this project.
Functions already exist to check the thing you're asking.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-30 21:45:20 | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-30 21:27:03 | Re: Sync Rep Design |