| From: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Seichter <daniel(at)dseichter(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgreSQL on NAS/SAN? |
| Date: | 2003-06-17 17:02:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20030617170253.GA1408@feivel.fam-meskes.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:57:15AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> Currently, any clustering / failover / replication is an add on. If you
> were to want to have two Postgresql servers with replication and failover
> between them, they would each need their own data store. That store could
> be on the same storage system, they would just have to be in different
> directories.
Why? This is only needed if both are active that is for load balancing.
The usual failover case of a hot-stand-by does not require this. You can
make the backup machine start its postmaster as soon as the other one
crashes.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
ICQ: 179140304, AIM: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes(at)jabber(dot)org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2003-06-17 17:05:25 | Re: postgreSQL on NAS/SAN? |
| Previous Message | Sven Köhler | 2003-06-17 17:02:16 | Re: full featured alter table? |