| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Dimitri Fontaine" <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby |
| Date: | 2009-07-09 14:13:07 |
| Message-ID: | 4A55B4A3020000250002863A@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> I think the interesting bit is when you're at this point and the
>> connection between the master and slave goes down for a couple
>> days. How do you handle that?
>
> In the current design of synch rep, you have only to restart the
> standby after repairing the network.
How long does the interruption need to last to require manual
intervention? Would an automated retry make sense? (I'd bet that
more days than not we lose connectivity to at least one of our remote
sites for at least a few minutes.)
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Hunsberger | 2009-07-09 14:14:37 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-07-09 13:40:53 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |