From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication Ideas |
Date: | 2003-08-28 07:07:53 |
Message-ID: | 3F4DF7A1.21007.3477A6E@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 26 Aug 2003 at 3:01, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> writes:
> > > Yes I have. Postgres-r is not a high-availability solution which is
> > > capable of transparent failover,
> >
> > What makes you say that? My understanding is it's supposed to survive
> > loss of individual servers.
>
> How does it play 'catch up' went a server comes back online?
<dumb idea>
PITR + archive logs daemon? Chances of a node and an archive log daemon going
down simalrenously are pretty low. If archive log daemon works on another
machin, the MTBF should be pretty acceptable..
</dumb idea>
Bye
Shridhar
--
The Briggs-Chase Law of Program Development: To determine how long it will take
to write and debug a program, take your best estimate, multiply that by two,
add one, and convert to the next higher units.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex | 2003-08-28 07:20:38 | Re: Question Join/Subselect |
Previous Message | Bo Lorentsen | 2003-08-28 07:06:56 | Re: 7.4b1 vs 7.3.4 performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | matt | 2003-08-28 08:17:20 | Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load |
Previous Message | Tomka Gergely | 2003-08-28 06:51:33 | Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-08-28 07:34:12 | Re: pgsql inserts problem |
Previous Message | Tomka Gergely | 2003-08-28 06:55:55 | Re: 8 way Intel Xeon system |