| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Date: | 2010-09-07 15:43:47 |
| Message-ID: | 10926.1283874227@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 11:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We can *not* allow the slave to replay WAL ahead of what is known
>> committed to disk on the master. The only way to make that safe
>> is the compare-notes-and-ship-WAL-back approach that Robert mentioned.
>>
>> If you feel that decoupling WAL application is absolutely essential
>> to have a credible feature, then you'd better bite the bullet and
>> start working on the ship-WAL-back code.
> Why not just failover?
Guaranteed failover is another large piece we don't have.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-07 15:47:20 | Re: git: uh-oh |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-07 15:41:52 | Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry |