| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
| Date: | 2010-10-14 11:47:35 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=dkPjr7LVnzpDgKC9=fY3YVFwy6ehHd9H9hAzN@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> Why don't the usual protections kick in here? The new record read from
> the location the xlog reader is expecting to find it has to have a
> valid CRC and a correct back pointer to the previous record.
Yep. In most cases, those protections seem to be able to make the standby
notice the inconsistency of WAL and then give up continuing replication.
But not in all the cases. We can regard those protections as bullet-proof
safeguard?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitriy Igrishin | 2010-10-14 12:00:41 | Re: querying the version of libpq |
| Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2010-10-14 11:11:24 | Re: How to reliably detect if it's a promoting standby |