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

Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby

From: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby
Date: 2010-07-09 16:31:56
Message-ID: i17itq$g11$1@dough.gmane.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
Hi,

Rob Wultsch wrote on 09.07.2010 18:14:
>> I am aware that I can use the 9.0 standby server for read only queries, but
>> that is (currently) not something we need
>>
>
> Taking SQL backups without impacting the master might be something to consider.

Interesting point. Thanks for mentioning that.

  
>> I'm wondering about the differences when the failover situation occurs. From
>> reading the docs, I get the impression that 9.0's streaming replication
>> might be faster than 8.4's WAL shipping, but otherwise offers the same level
>> of data protection.
>>
>> Is there a difference in how much data could potentially be lost in case of
>> a failover?
>
> 9.0 has streaming replication so much less data would likely be lost.
> WAL logs are generally 16 MB and often shipped when completed.

So my assumption is correct that streaming replication does mean that in case of a failover less transactions are lost?
  

Regards
Thomas


In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-07-09 16:52:15
Subject: Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby
Previous:From: Rob WultschDate: 2010-07-09 16:14:37
Subject: Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby

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