| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-07-09 16:52:15 | Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby |
| Previous Message | Rob Wultsch | 2010-07-09 16:14:37 | Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby |