| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New sync commit mode remote_write |
| Date: | 2012-04-20 15:20:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+Qz_di6-DN-KV5wD-ZkkGMbPVrd=V+Y6aC0x1bFm5XoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically
>> restart after a crash, insisting on a fail-over instead (or a manual
>> forcing of recovery)?
>
> I suppose that would work, but I think Simon's idea is better: don't
> let the slave replay the WAL until either (a) it's promoted or (b) the
> master finishes the fsync. That boils down to adding some more
> handshaking to the replication protocol, I think.
It would be 8 bytes on every data message sent to the standby.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2012-04-20 15:29:34 | Re: Plan stability versus near-exact ties in cost estimates |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-20 15:03:46 | Re: Plan stability versus near-exact ties in cost estimates |