| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication patch v1 |
| Date: | 2008-11-06 12:35:22 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0811060435u10e6542v65c21a6759a31001@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> If the database whose timeline is the same as the primary's
> exists in the standby, 2)3) getting new online-backup is not
> necessary. For example, after the standby falls down, the
> database at that time is applicable to restart it.
>
>
If I remember correctly, when postgres finishes its recovery, it
increments the timeline. If this is true, whenever ACT fails and SBY
becomes primary, SBY would increment its timeline. So when the former
ACT comes back and joins the replication as SBY, would it need to get
a fresh backup before it can join as SBY ?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Volkan YAZICI | 2008-11-06 12:49:13 | Re: question about large object |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2008-11-06 10:35:54 | Re: Patch for ALTER DATABASE WITH TABLESPACE |