| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Rawnsley <ronz(at)investoranalytics(dot)com> |
| Cc: | postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: streamlined standby procedure |
| Date: | 2006-02-07 18:19:58 |
| Message-ID: | 27495.1139336398@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Rawnsley <ronz(at)investoranalytics(dot)com> writes:
> IMHO the #1 priority in the current PITR/WAL shipping system is to make the
> standby able to tolerate being shut down and restarted, i.e. actually having
> a true standby mode and not the current method of doing it only on startup.
How is shutting down the standby a good idea? Seems like that will
block the master too --- or at least result in WAL log files piling up
rapidly. If the standby goes off-line, abandoning it and starting from
a fresh base backup when you are ready to restart it seems like the most
likely recovery path. For sure I don't see this as the "#1 priority".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | CG | 2006-02-07 18:20:12 | PostgreSQL 8.1 x86_64 and 32bit shared objects |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-07 18:16:28 | Re: Actual expression of a constraint |