| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikko Partio" <mpartio(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Douglas McNaught" <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering (shared disk) |
| Date: | 2007-08-17 13:59:26 |
| Message-ID: | 4745.1187359166@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Mikko Partio" <mpartio(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This was my original intention. I'm still quite hesitant to trust the
> fencing devices ability to quarantee that only one postmaster at a time is
> running, because of the disastrous possibility of corrupting the whole
> database.
Making that guarantee is a fencing device's only excuse for existence.
So I think you should trust that a properly-implemented fence will do
what it's claimed to do.
On the other side of the coin, I have little confidence in DRBD
providing the storage semantics we need (in particular guaranteeing
write ordering). So that path doesn't sound exactly risk-free either.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-17 14:01:00 | Re: Accessing pg_timezone_names system view |
| Previous Message | Raymond O'Donnell | 2007-08-17 13:55:21 | Re: Repeat posts |