| From: | Dmitry Panov <dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL logs multiplexing? |
| Date: | 2005-12-28 16:10:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1135786201.6858.33.camel@ip6-localhost |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 11:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dmitry Panov <dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru> writes:
> > Yes, but if the server has crashed earlier the script won't be called
> > and if the filesystem can't be recovered the changes will be lost. My
> > point is the server should write into both (or more) files at the same
> > time.
>
> As for that, I agree with the other person: a RAID array does that just
> fine, and with much higher performance than we could muster.
>
Please see my reply to the other person. The other place can be on an
NFS mounted directory. This is what the Oracle guys do and they know
what they are doing (despite the latest release is total crap).
Best regards,
--
Dmitry O Panov | mailto:dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru
Tula State University | Fidonet: Dmitry Panov, 2:5022/5.13
Dept. of CS & NIT | http://www.tsu.tula.ru/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Harding | 2005-12-28 16:38:05 | Re: WAL logs multiplexing? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-28 16:05:16 | Re: WAL logs multiplexing? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Harding | 2005-12-28 16:38:05 | Re: WAL logs multiplexing? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-28 16:05:16 | Re: WAL logs multiplexing? |