From: | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2008-05-30 14:26:53 |
Message-ID: | 20080530162653.3a243dd6@iridium.wars-nicht.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 29 May 2008 18:29:01 -0400 Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dim(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> > While at it, would it be possible for the "simple" part of the core
> > team statement to include automatic failover?
>
> No, I think it would be a useless expenditure of energy. Failover
> includes a lot of things that are not within our purview: switching
> IP addresses to point to the new server, some kind of STONITH solution
> to keep the original master from coming back to life, etc. Moreover
> there are already projects/products concerned with those issues.
True words. Failover is not and should not be part of PostgreSQL.
But PG can help the failover solution, as example: an easy-to-use
interface about the current slave status comes into my mind. Other
ideas might also be possible.
> It might be useful to document where to find solutions to that problem,
> but we can't take it on as part of core Postgres.
Ack
Kind regards
--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum | 2008-05-30 14:42:10 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum | 2008-05-30 14:19:00 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Hodges | 2008-05-30 14:35:39 | Re: replication hooks |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2008-05-30 14:20:44 | Re: Initial max_connections for initdb on FreeBSD. |