From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby |
Date: | 2009-07-08 03:57:29 |
Message-ID: | 3f0b79eb0907072057w35fee2bfo69450114e02f5f5@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This design seems totally wrong to me. It's confusing the master's
> pg_xlog directory with the archive. We should *not* use pg_xlog as
> a long-term archive area; that's terrible from both a performance
> and a reliability perspective. Performance because pg_xlog has to be
> fairly high-speed storage, which conflicts with it needing to hold
> a lot of stuff; and reliability because the entire point of all this
> is to survive a master server crash, and you're probably not going to
> have its pg_xlog anymore after that.
Yeah, I agree that pg_xlog is not a long-term archive area. So, in my
design, the primary server tries to read the old XLOG file from not only
pg_xlog but also an archive if available, and transfers it.
> If slaves need to be able to get at past WAL, they should be getting
> it from a separate archive server that is independent of the master DB.
You assume that restore_command which retrieves the old XLOG file
from a separate archive server is specified in the standby?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2009-07-08 04:25:59 | Re: Re: Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-08 03:46:28 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |