| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby |
| Date: | 2008-09-11 12:23:32 |
| Message-ID: | 48C90DC4.3030202@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> There is nothing stopping you from setting up two (or more) slave
> servers, with one designated as failover that doens't serve queries,
> right?
I'd imagine that even if applying the WAL on the slave is blocked, it's
still streamed from the master to the slave, and in case of failover the
slave will fast-forward before starting up as the new master. Of course,
if it has fallen 3 days behind because of a giant reporting query, it
can take a while to replay all the WAL that has accumulated.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2008-09-11 12:39:25 | Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-09-11 12:20:30 | Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code |