From: | "Sebastian Reitenbach" <itlistuser(at)rapideye(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postgres in HA constellation |
Date: | 2006-10-11 14:42:22 |
Message-ID: | 20061011144223.3F4538C03F@ogo.rapideye.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Hi,
>
> I think this highlights exactly what I'm trying to emphasise: in
> actual, shared-nothing systems like this, there's no possible
> guarantee of "never". There are possible guarantees of "very
> rarely". The problem is, you're already trying to address a teeny
> portion of the likely events on your machines. So you have to assume
> that more than one thing might break at the same time, and have a
> recovery plan for it. I submit that a recovery plan of "restore from
> pg_dump" is usually not going to be enough if it was worth the cost
> and hassle of setting up shared disk failover. YMMV, of course.
>
yes, I did a restore from a dump with pg_dump, that took over a day. maybe I
can speed it up a bit, but this is going to take too long.
Sebastian
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2006-10-11 15:14:39 | Re: Copying data from table to table (cloned tables) |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2006-10-11 14:33:27 | Re: postgres in HA constellation |