| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-09-07 14:31:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4C864CA9.7060407@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/07/2010 04:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> In theory, that's true, but if we do that, then there's an even bigger
> problem: the slave might have replayed WAL ahead of the master
> location; therefore the slave is now corrupt and a new base backup
> must be taken.
The slave isn't corrupt. It would suffice to "late abort" committed
transactions the master doesn't know about.
However, I realize that undoing of WAL isn't something that's
implemented (nor planned). So it's probably easier to forward the master
in such a case.
> Yeah, I hope we'll get there eventually.
Understood. Thanks.
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-09-07 14:32:53 | Re: git: uh-oh |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-07 14:16:27 | Re: git: uh-oh |