From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Samrat Revagade <revagade(dot)samrat(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com, ants(at)cybertec(dot)at |
Subject: | Re: Inconsistent DB data in Streaming Replication |
Date: | 2013-04-10 18:43:44 |
Message-ID: | 20130410184344.GA15147@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-04-10 20:39:25 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> 2013-04-10 18:46 keltezéssel, Fujii Masao írta:
> >On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >>On 2013-04-10 10:10:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> writes:
> >>>>On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:42 PM Samrat Revagade wrote:
> >>>>>Sorry, this is incorrect. Streaming replication continuous, master is not
> >>>>>waiting, whenever the master writes the data page it checks that the WAL
> >>>>>record is written in standby till that LSN.
> >>>>I am not sure it will resolve the problem completely as your old-master can
> >>>>have some WAL extra then new-master for same timeline. I don't remember
> >>>>exactly will timeline switch feature
> >>>>take care of this extra WAL, Heikki can confirm this point?
> >>>>Also I think this can serialize flush of data pages in checkpoint/bgwriter
> >>>>which is currently not the case.
> >>>Yeah. TBH this entire discussion seems to be "let's cripple performance
> >>>in the normal case so that we can skip doing an rsync when resurrecting
> >>>a crashed, failed-over master". This is not merely optimizing for the
> >>>wrong thing, it's positively hazardous. After a fail-over, you should
> >>>be wondering whether it's safe to resurrect the old master at all, not
> >>>about how fast you can bring it back up without validating its data.
> >>>IOW, I wouldn't consider skipping the rsync even if I had a feature
> >>>like this.
> >>Agreed. Especially as in situations where you fall over in a planned
> >>way, e.g. for a hardware upgrade, you can avoid the need to resync with
> >>a littlebit of care.
> >It's really worth documenting that way.
> >
> >>So its mostly in catastrophic situations this
> >>becomes a problem and in those you really should resync - and its a good
> >>idea not to use a normal rsync but a rsync --checksum or similar.
> >If database is very large, rsync --checksum takes very long. And I'm concerned
> >that most of data pages in master has the different checksum from those in the
> >standby because of commit hint bit. I'm not sure how rsync --checksum can
> >speed up the backup after failover.
Its not about speed, its about correctness.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2013-04-10 18:46:17 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Get rid of USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER dependency in trigram constructi |
Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-04-10 18:39:25 | Re: Inconsistent DB data in Streaming Replication |