| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)lisasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Failback without rebuild |
| Date: | 2014-02-11 19:42:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20140211194200.GJ2289@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 03:57:31PM +1100, James Sewell wrote:
> I've just noticed that on PostgreSQL 9.3 I can do the following with a master
> node A and a slave node B (as long as I have set recovery_target_timeline =
> 'latest'):
>
> 1. Stop Node A
> 2. Promote Node B
> 3. Attach Node A as slave
>
> This is sufficient for my needs (I know it doesn't cover a crash), can anyone
> see any potential problems with this approach?
I know some people have used rsync to get A to match B after a crash of
A and promotion of B.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2014-02-11 19:51:36 | Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-02-11 19:13:00 | Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans |