From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2008-05-29 16:18:44 |
Message-ID: | 483ED764.7050804@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Bruce,
> Another idea I discussed with Tom is having the slave _delay_ applying
> WAL files until all slave snapshots are ready.
>
Well, again, that only works for async mode. I personally think that's
the correct solution for async. But for synch mode, I think we need to
push the xids back to the master; generally if a user is running in
synch mode they're concerned about failover time and zero data loss, so
holding back the WAL files doesn't make sense.
Also, if you did delay applying WAL files on an async slave, you'd reach
a point (perhaps after a 6-hour query) where it'd actually be cheaper to
rebuild the slave than to apply the pent-up WAL files.
--Josh Berkus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-05-29 16:19:48 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-05-29 16:16:15 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-05-29 16:19:48 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-05-29 16:16:15 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |