| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatic Client Failover |
| Date: | 2008-08-05 02:56:52 |
| Message-ID: | 27737.1217905012@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> I think the proposal was for an extremely simple "works 75% of the time"
> failover solution. While I can see the attraction of that, the
> consequences of having failover *not* work are pretty severe.
Exactly. The point of failover (or any other HA feature) is to get
several nines worth of reliability. "It usually works" is simply
not playing in the right league.
> On the other hand, we will need to deal with this for the built-in
> replication project.
Nope, that's orthogonal. A failover solution depends on having a master
and a slave database, but it has nothing directly to do with how those
DBs are synchronized.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nick | 2008-08-05 03:39:33 | Reliability of CURRVAL in a RULE |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-08-05 01:48:39 | Re: CommitFest July Over |