From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: disposition of remaining patches |
Date: | 2011-02-25 19:24:31 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=260oeNvn9QBPV60N8TJ9Bd79aVJWPFPjQz8kx@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:25 AM, marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Right now, as it stands, the syncrep patch will be happy as soon as
>> the data has been fsynced to either B or A-prime; I don't think we can
>> guarantee at any point that A-prime can become the leader, and feed B.
>>
>
> - start A` up, replicating from A
> - shutdown B (now A nad A` are synchronous)
> now real quick:
> - shut down A
> - shut down A`
> -change configuration
> -start up A`
> -start up B
>
> Doesn`t this work?
This dance does work, but it would be very nice to not have to take
the standby ('B' in my case) offline.
--
fdr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-02-25 19:26:10 | Re: WIP: cross column correlation ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-25 18:00:28 | Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning? |