> I want to say a big big +1 here. The way replication and PITR setup are
> implemented now are a very good prototype, it's time to consolidate and
> get to something usable by normal people, as opposed to PostgreSQL full
> time geeks.
Well, one thing to be addressed is separating the PITR functionality
from replication. PITR needs a lot of features -- timelines, recovery
stop points, etc. -- which replication doesn't need or want. I think
that focussing on streaming replication functionality and ignoring the
archive logs case is probably the best way to logically separate these
two. Presumably anyone who needs archive logs as well will be a
> I could prepare a patch given some advice on the replication protocol
> integration. For one, is streaming a base backup something that
> walsender should care about?
Yeah, I thought there was a prototype for this somewhere. From a user
perspective, using a 2nd pgport connection for the initial clone is
fine. I don't know if we want to worry about it otherwise from a
resource management perspective; presumably the cloning process is going
to be a pretty big performance hit on the master.
> BTW, do we have a clear idea of how to implement pg_ping, and should it
> reports current WAL location(s) of a standby?
> That needs a way to define a group of standby. There's nothing there
> that makes them know about each other.
Let me clarify. I meant that if I try to make a *single* standby point
to a new master, and that new master was behind the standby when it
failed over, then the attempt to remaster should fail with an error.
I do *not* want to get into standby groups. That way lies madness. ;-)
> Now say we have pg_ping (or another tool) returning the current recv,
> applied and synced LSNs, it would be possible for any standby to figure
> out which other ones must be shot in case you failover here. The
> failover command could list those other standby in the group that you're
> behind of, and with a force command allow you to still failover to this
> one. Now you have to STONITH the one listed, but that's your problem
> after all.
The LSN isn't enough; as others have pointed out, we have a fairly
serious failure case if a standby comes up as a master, accepts
transactions, and then we try to remaster a 2nd standby which was
actually ahead of the first standby at the time of master failure. I
haven't seen a solution posted to that yet; maybe I missed it?
> Sorry, next time I'll make sure to bash Robert too. I don't have any
> problems with the basic ideas you're proposing, just concerns about when
> the right time to get into that whole giant subject is and who is going
> to work on.
If not now, when? The 2nd CommitFest is almost complete. If we're
going to make any substantial changes, we need to have patches for the
3rd commitfest. And I didn't see anyone discussing simplification until
I brought it up.
I don't realistically think that we're going to get 100% simplification
for 9.1. But it would be nice to at least get some components, which
means getting agreement on how things should work, at least roughly.
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-10-19 16:18:41|
|Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-10-19 16:16:01|
|Subject: Re: O_DSYNC broken on MacOS X?|