| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Date: | 2014-01-11 01:21:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1389403304.12505.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 17:56 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > That's why you should configure a second standby as another (candidate)
> > synchronous replica, also listed in synchronous_standby_names.
>
> Perhaps we should stress in the docs that this is, in fact, the *only*
> reasonable mode in which to run with sync rep on? Where there are
> multiple replicas, because otherwise Drake is correct that you'll just
> end up having both nodes go offline if the slave fails.
It's not unreasonable to run with only two if the writers are consuming
from a reliable message queue (or another system that maintains its own
reliable persistence). Then you can just continue processing messages
after you have repaired your replication pair.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-01-11 01:40:56 | Re: integrate pg_upgrade analyze_new_cluster.sh into vacuumdb |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-01-11 01:21:18 | Re: integrate pg_upgrade analyze_new_cluster.sh into vacuumdb |