From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David F(dot) Skoll" <dfs(at)roaringpenguin(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Warm-standby robustness question |
Date: | 2007-12-18 18:55:57 |
Message-ID: | 3149.1198004157@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"David F. Skoll" <dfs(at)roaringpenguin(dot)com> writes:
> My question is this: If the master database is fairly busy, gets
> VACUUMed once a day, etc. can we expect the warm standby server
> to work correctly after days/weeks/months/years of log shipping,
> or should we periodically take new base backups?
I don't think the time period is at issue. Log-shipping should keep the
slave a perfect replica of the master (if it doesn't, we have problems
anyway). The operational question you need to ask yourself is: if
you haven't swapped to the slave lately, how do you know it will work
when you need it to?
The current backup/restore docs suggest as best practice that you
intentionally swap master and slave periodically, ie, fail over
to the slave and then re-initialize the master as a new slave.
This provides a periodic test that your fail-over mechanisms actually
work, and as a bonus gives you a chance for a maintenance window
on the ex-master before it's brought up as new slave.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Deron | 2007-12-18 20:30:12 | Set maintenance work mem for pg_restore |
Previous Message | David F. Skoll | 2007-12-18 17:49:19 | Warm-standby robustness question |