From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, 'Samrat Revagade' <revagade(dot)samrat(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Hannu Krosing' <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'PostgreSQL-development' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com, ants(at)cybertec(dot)at |
Subject: | Re: Inconsistent DB data in Streaming Replication |
Date: | 2013-04-10 14:16:45 |
Message-ID: | 20130410141645.GC15043@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-04-10 10:10:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:42 PM Samrat Revagade wrote:
> >> Sorry, this is incorrect. Streaming replication continuous, master is not
> >> waiting, whenever the master writes the data page it checks that the WAL
> >> record is written in standby till that LSN.
>
> > I am not sure it will resolve the problem completely as your old-master can
> > have some WAL extra then new-master for same timeline. I don't remember
> > exactly will timeline switch feature
> > take care of this extra WAL, Heikki can confirm this point?
> > Also I think this can serialize flush of data pages in checkpoint/bgwriter
> > which is currently not the case.
>
> Yeah. TBH this entire discussion seems to be "let's cripple performance
> in the normal case so that we can skip doing an rsync when resurrecting
> a crashed, failed-over master". This is not merely optimizing for the
> wrong thing, it's positively hazardous. After a fail-over, you should
> be wondering whether it's safe to resurrect the old master at all, not
> about how fast you can bring it back up without validating its data.
> IOW, I wouldn't consider skipping the rsync even if I had a feature
> like this.
Agreed. Especially as in situations where you fall over in a planned
way, e.g. for a hardware upgrade, you can avoid the need to resync with
a littlebit of care. So its mostly in catastrophic situations this
becomes a problem and in those you really should resync - and its a good
idea not to use a normal rsync but a rsync --checksum or similar.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-04-10 14:23:42 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-10 14:10:31 | Re: Inconsistent DB data in Streaming Replication |