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. +
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 |