| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-09-22 08:21:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4C99BC76.7010108@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 09/21/2010 08:05 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Hmm, no reason? The reason is that the alternative is that the session
> would hang until a standby arrived that offered that level of service.
> Why would you want that behaviour? Would you really request that option?
I think I now agree with Simon on that point. It's only an issue in
multi-master replication, where continued operation would lead to a
split-brain situation.
With master-slave, you only need to make sure your master stays the
master even if the standby crash(es) are followed by a master crash. If
your cluster-ware is too clever and tries a fail-over on a slave that's
quicker to come up, you get the same split-brain situation.
Put another way: if you let your master continue, don't ever try a
fail-over after a full-cluster crash.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-09-22 08:47:03 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-09-22 08:18:53 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-09-22 08:22:28 | Re: Needs Suggestion |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-09-22 08:18:53 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |