| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: is sync rep stalled? |
| Date: | 2010-10-04 17:06:53 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimJGkpqb_AP3Pfn1_jWC8zRjNUJ0yCM_k_WmjMK@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have one question for clarity:
>
> If we make all the transactions wait until specified standbys have
> connected to the master, how do we take a base backup from the
> master for those standbys? We seem to be unable to do that because
> pg_start_backup also waits forever. Is this right?
Well, in my *opinion*, if you've told the master to not "commit to"
*anything* unless it's synchronously replicated, you should already
have a synchronously replicating slave up and running.
I'm happy with the docs saying (maybe some what more politely):
Before configuring your master to be completly,
wait-fully-synchronous, make sure you have a slave capable of being
synchronous ready. Because if you've told it to never be
un-synchronous, it won't be.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-04 17:13:36 | Re: MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-04 16:42:41 | Re: ALTER DATABASE RENAME with HS/SR |