From: | "Mikko Partio" <mpartio(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Douglas McNaught" <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
Cc: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering (shared disk) |
Date: | 2007-08-17 09:12:16 |
Message-ID: | 2ca799770708170212n5e23c6e4qf0842ebc522bd89e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 8/16/07, Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> wrote:
>
> Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com> writes:
>
> >> What I'm pondering here is that is the cluster able to keep the
> >> postmasters synchronized at all times so that the database won't get
> >> corrupted.
> >
> > Keep all the $PGDATA in the shared disk. That would minimize data loss
> > (Of course, there is still a risk of data loss -- the postmasters are
> > not aware of each other and they don't share each other's buffers, etc.)
>
> It would be much better to have the cluster software only run one
> postmaster at a time, starting up the secondary if the primary fails.
> That's the usual practice with shared storage.
This was my original intention. I'm still quite hesitant to trust the
fencing devices ability to quarantee that only one postmaster at a time is
running, because of the disastrous possibility of corrupting the whole
database.
Maybe I'm just better off using the more simple (crude?) method of drbd +
heartbeat?
Regards
MP
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannes Dorbath | 2007-08-17 09:47:13 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering (shared disk) |
Previous Message | Hannes Dorbath | 2007-08-17 08:59:32 | CREATE RULE.. RETURNING? |