From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fast switchover |
Date: | 2025-09-08 19:54:14 |
Message-ID: | aa9c4428c2066cb683952950ce07df85f50b962c.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2025-09-08 at 15:03 +0000, legrand legrand wrote:
> For some projects we need a fast manual switchover to address Near Zero downtime maintenance
> (not speaking here about automated failover like those provided by HA tools, but just planned, controlled operations)
>
> Database Physical replication switchover itself:
> - initial replication (before switchover) should be synchronous or replication LAG should be controlled to prevent data loss.
> - Switchover duration seems not "compressible" under a few seconds (because of primary shutdown, promotion, new standby catch up, ...)
> - Application retry strategy (after disconnection) should be tuned using proper retry delay. Pooler or specific driver may help.
There is no need for synchronous replication; you cannot lose data with a switchover,
if you do it right:
- run a CHACKPOINT on the primary (to speed up the shutdown)
- when the checkpoint is done, perform a clean shutdown
- when the primary is down, promote the standby
The primary will transmit *all* data to the standby before it shuts down.
> May logical replication ( bi-directional, with one instance RW and the other RO) be a better solution ?
I'd say no.
> what could we expect (in term of downtime in both worlds) ?
Usually seconds, so plan for ten minutes.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Klaus Darilion | 2025-09-08 20:31:45 | RE: Fast switchover |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2025-09-08 16:48:12 | Re: Fast switchover |