| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, mfatticcioni(at)mbigroup(dot)it, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DRBD and Postgres: how to improve the perfomance? |
| Date: | 2007-09-08 16:39:37 |
| Message-ID: | 24337.1189269577@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> You're right, but the distinction is a small one. What are the chances
>>> of losing two independent servers within a few milliseconds of each
>>> other?
>>
>> If they're on the same power bus?
> That chance is minuscule or at least should be.
It seems a bit silly to be doing replication to a slave server that has
any common point of failure with the master.
However, it seems like the point here is not so much "can you recover
your data" as what a commit means. Do you want a commit reported to the
client to mean the data is safely down to disk in both places, or only
one?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-09-08 16:49:09 | Re: DRBD and Postgres: how to improve the perfomance? |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-09-08 16:33:55 | Re: DRBD and Postgres: how to improve the perfomance? |