| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: failover vs. read only queries |
| Date: | 2010-06-10 02:07:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20100610.110747.58444214.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The fact that failover current does *not* terminate existing queries and
> transactions was regarded as a feature by the audience, rather than a
> bug, when I did demos of HS/SR. Of course, they might not have been
> thinking of the delay for writes.
Probably you would hear different respose from serious users who are
willing to have usable HA systems. I have number of customers who are
using our HA systems (they use several technologies such as commercial
HA solutions, pgpool-II and Slony-I). The one of top 3 questions I got
when we propose them our HA solution is, "how long will it take to
do failover when the master DB crashes?"
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-10 02:26:12 | Re: parser handling of large object OIDs |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-10 01:54:25 | Re: InvalidXLogRecPtr in docs |