From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v19 |
Date: | 2011-03-05 15:26:35 |
Message-ID: | 1299338795.10703.12702.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 20:08 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Yes, that can happen. As people will no doubt observe, this seems to be
> > an argument for wait-forever. What we actually need is a wait that lasts
> > longer than it takes for us to decide to failover, if the standby is
> > actually up and this is some kind of split brain situation. That way the
> > clients are still waiting when failover occurs. WAL is missing, but
> > since we didn't acknowledge the client we are OK to treat that situation
> > as if it were an abort.
>
> Oracle Data Guard in the maximum availability mode behaves that way?
>
> I'm sure that you are implementing something like the maximum availability
> mode rather than the maximum protection one. So I'd like to know how
> the data loss situation I described can be avoided in the maximum availability
> mode.
This is important, so I am taking time to formulate a full reply.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andy Colson | 2011-03-05 15:33:44 | Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest) |
Previous Message | Andy Colson | 2011-03-05 15:17:55 | Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest) |