From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | fazool mein <fazoolmein(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock |
Date: | 2010-10-26 19:02:27 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinAroFJnL4sAER8Z3c24Na0Qwc38QNUGiMdGn=8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that the standby might get ahead, but this doesn't necessarily
>> lead to database corruption. Here, the interesting case is what happens
>> when the primary fails, which can lead to *either* of the following two
>> cases:
>> 1) The standby, due to some triggering mechanism, becomes the new
>> primary. In this case, even if the standby was ahead, its fine.
>> 2) The primary comes back as primary. In this case, the standby will
>> connect again to the primary. At this point, *if* somehow we are able to
>> detect that the standby is ahead, then we should abort the standby and
>> create a standby from scratch.
>
> Yes. And we weren't able to implement that for 9.0. It's worth
> revisiting for 9.1. In fact, the issue of "is the standby ahead of the
> master" has come up repeatedly in potential failure scenarios; I think
> we're going to need a fairly bulletproof method to determine this.
Agreed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-10-26 19:09:01 | Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-26 19:00:05 | Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock |