| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hiroyuki Yamada <yamada(at)kokolink(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: alpha3 release schedule? |
| Date: | 2009-12-22 15:38:58 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0912220738je1e0141m87d7b688dd4ba27f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, you either wait for master to come up again and restart, or you
>> flip into normal mode and keep running queries from there. You aren't
>> prevented from using the server, except by your own refusal to
>> failover.
>
> Very true. However, that "refusal" as you put it might actually be the
> most sensible thing to do in a lot of setups. Not everyone needs extreme
> up-time guarantees, and for those people setting up, testing and
> *continuously* exercising fail-over is just not worth the effort.
> Especially since fail-over with asynchronous replication is tricky to
> get right if you want to avoid data loss.
To say nothing that the replica might not be a suitable master at all.
It could be running on inferior hardware or be on a separate network
perhaps too slow to reach from production services.
HA is not the only use case for HS or even the main one in my experience
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-12-22 15:45:46 | Re: alpha3 release schedule? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-22 15:37:38 | Re: Tuplestore should remember the memory context it's created in |