On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Thought? Comment? Objection?
>> What happens if the WAL is streamed to the standby and then the master
>> crashes without writing that WAL to disk?
> What are you concerned about?
> I think that the situation would be the same as 9.0 from users' perspective.
> After failover, the transaction which a client regards as aborted (because
> of the crash) might be visible or invisible on new master (i.e., original
> standby). For now, we cannot control that.
I think the failover case might be OK. But if the master crashes and
restarts, the slave might be left thinking its xlog position is ahead
of the xlog position on the master.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-06-11 14:31:30|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers |
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2010-06-11 13:57:48|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers|