From: | "hans wulf" <lotu1(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 9.1.3 Standby catchup mode |
Date: | 2012-04-08 10:51:04 |
Message-ID: | 20120408105104.190320@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> Why would you not want to maintain a WAL archive? Are you depending on
> the
> slave server(s) as your only form of backup?
If the slave devide acts as a perfect backup, why would I need an additional 3rd entiy for WAL backups?
I know what the difference between sync and async is, but I don't see the need for a WAL archive in sync mode. Can you please explain that? Thanks
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 17:54:54 -0400
> Von: Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>
> An: hans wulf <lotu1(at)gmx(dot)net>
> CC: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] 9.1.3 Standby catchup mode
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 12:35 PM, hans wulf <lotu1(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
> > I am wondering how the catchup mode of a hot synchron slave server works
> > on 9.1.3 if there is no WAL archive.
> >
>
>
> It isn't clear what you want from synchronous streaming replication, or if
> you understand the difference between synchronous streaming replication
> and
> asynchronous streaming replication.
> --
> Mike Nolan
--
NEU: FreePhone 3-fach-Flat mit kostenlosem Smartphone!
Jetzt informieren: http://mobile.1und1.de/?ac=OM.PW.PW003K20328T7073a
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-04-08 23:41:31 | Re: 9.1.3 Standby catchup mode |
Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2012-04-07 17:51:03 | Re: BD impossible à recharger |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2012-04-08 13:56:26 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |
Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2012-04-08 09:24:33 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |