Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Cascading replication: should we detect/prevent cycles?

From: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cascading replication: should we detect/prevent cycles?
Date: 2013-02-01 08:16:10
Message-ID: 510B79CA.6060108@catalyst.net.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 01/02/13 20:43, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, 27 January 2013, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>  > If we're going to start installing safeguards against doing stupid
>  > things, there's a long list of scenarios that happen far more
>  > regularly than this ever will and cause far more damage.
>
> +1

+1

...and there are other areas that we could spend our energy on that 
would be more worthwhile I think. One I'd like to see is the opposite of:

$ pg_ctl promote

i.e:

$ pg_ctl demote

So a "retired" master would read a (newly supplied perhaps) 
recovery.conf and start to apply changes from there (with suitable 
safeguards). We have failover pretty painless now... but reconstruction 
of the original primary as a new standby is still too 
fiddly/resource/time consuming etc.

Regards

Mark



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2013-02-01 08:29:23
Subject: Re: Unusually high IO for autovacuum worker
Previous:From: Vlad BailescuDate: 2013-02-01 08:14:29
Subject: Unusually high IO for autovacuum worker

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group