Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Hampus Wessman <hampus(at)hampuswessman(dot)se>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux
Date: 2012-07-13 14:52:43
Message-ID: 20120713145243.GB15443@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:12:56AM +0200, Hampus Wessman wrote:
> How you decide what to do with the servers on failures isn't that
> important here, really. You can probably run e.g. Pacemaker on 3+
> machines and have it check for quorums to accomplish this. That's a
> good approach at least. You can still have only 2 database servers
> (for cost reasons), if you want. PostgreSQL could have all this
> built-in, but I don't think it sounds overly useful to only be able
> to disable synchronous replication on the primary after a timeout.
> Then you can never safely do a failover to the secondary, because
> you can't be sure synchronous replication was active on the failed
> primary...

So how about this for a Postgres TODO:

Add configuration variable to allow Postgres to disable synchronous
replication after a specified timeout, and add variable to alert
administrators of the change.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-07-13 15:38:19 Re: BlockNumber initialized to InvalidBuffer?
Previous Message Boszormenyi Zoltan 2012-07-13 13:45:10 Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework