Re: failover vs. read only queries

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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