| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Date: | 2008-12-10 19:52:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1228938736.2754.13.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 09:48 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> What is complicated about having the archive on the standby server?
>
If the storage on the standby fails, you would lose the archive, right?
I think there's a use case for having two identical servers, and just
setting them up to replicate synchronously. Many of these use-cases
might not even care much about write performance or the duplicity of
maintaining two copies of the archive. They might care a lot about PITR
though, and that would be impossible if you lose the archive.
Do you see a cost to allowing all of the options listed by Fujii Masao?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-12-10 19:55:15 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-12-10 19:39:17 | Re: cvs head initdb hangs on unixware |