From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
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: | 2008-12-11 14:58:55 |
Message-ID: | 1229007536.20796.1054.camel@hp_dx2400_1 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 09:37 -0500, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> [081211 05:25]:
>
> > - standalone
> > The primary doesn't archive the WAL only during replication. If
> replication is
> > not in progress, the primary archives the WAL. That is, the
> primary switches
> > the modes whenever replication starts / ends.
> But I'm sure as hell *not* going to throw all my eggs into that
> slave's
> basket and do away with my WAL archive... Would anyone actually use
> that "standby" mode, and if not, why compilcate the code for it?
Sending data twice is not a requirement I ever heard expressed, nor has
the lack of ability to send it twice been voiced as a criticism for any
form of replication I'm familiar with. Ask the DRBD guys if sending data
twice is necessary or required to make replication work.
If multiple people think its a good idea then I respect your choice of
option.
But I also think that many or perhaps most people will choose not to
send data twice and I respect that choice of option also.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-12-11 15:04:05 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-12-11 14:58:21 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |