From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: xReader, double-effort (was: Temporary tables under hot standby) |
Date: | 2012-05-03 19:54:07 |
Message-ID: | 4FA2E25F.7040308@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> That's an interesting point. Out of curiosity, how did the
> corruption originate?
We're still not sure. It appears to be in the system catalogs, though.
Note that the original master developed memory issues.
> It suggests a couple questions:
>
> (1) Was Slony running before the corruption occurred?
No.
> If not, how
> was Slony helpful?
Install, replicate DB logically, new DB works fine.
> (2) If logical transactions had been implemented as additions to
> the WAL stream, and Slony was using that, do you think they would
> still have been usable for this recovery?
Quite possibly not.
> Perhaps sending both physical and logical transaction streams over
> the WAN isn't such a bad thing, if it gives us more independent
> recovery mechanisms. That's fewer copies than we're sending with
> current trigger-based techniques.
Frankly, there's nothing wrong with the Slony model for replication
except for the overhead of:
1. triggers
2. queues
3. Running DDL
However, the three above are really big issues.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-05-03 19:56:55 | Re: Have we out-grown Flex? |
Previous Message | james | 2012-05-03 19:53:59 | Re: Have we out-grown Flex? |