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

Re: register/unregister standby Re: Synchronous replication

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: register/unregister standby Re: Synchronous replication
Date: 2010-09-02 10:23:12
Message-ID: AANLkTi=YZVYEb-Su+XvPWGU4YJc-O7tVOj0GOsBDOZF8@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 30 August 2010 13:14, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think that the advantage of registering standbys is that we can
> specify which WAL files the master has to keep for the upcoming
> standby. IMO, it's usually called together with pg_start_backup
> as follows:
>
>    SELECT register_standby('foo', pg_start_backup())
>
> This requests the master keep to all the WAL files following the
> backup starting location which pg_start_backup returns. Now we
> can do that by using wal_keep_segments, but it's not easy to set
> because it's difficult to predict how many WAL files the standby
> will require.

+1  I don't like the idea of having to guess how many WAL files you
think you'll need to keep around.

And if these standby instances have to register, could there be a view
to list subscriber information?

-- 
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-09-02 10:24:05
Subject: Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry
Previous:From: Itagaki TakahiroDate: 2010-09-02 10:03:56
Subject: Re: register/unregister standby Re: Synchronous replication

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