| From: | KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time-Delayed Standbys |
| Date: | 2013-12-11 06:36:37 |
| Message-ID: | 52A807F5.4020203@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2013/12/10 18:38), Andres Freund wrote:
> "master PITR"? What's that? All PITR is based on recovery.conf and thus
> not really a "master"?
"master PITR" is PITR with "standby_mode = off". It's just recovery from
basebackup. They have difference between "master PITR" and "standby" that the
former will be independent timelineID, but the latter is same timeline ID taht
following the master sever. In the first place, purposes are different.
> Why should we prohibit using this feature in PITR? I don't see any
> advantage in doing so. If somebody doesn't want the delay, they
> shouldn't set it in the configuration file. End of story.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of stupid in the world... I think you have these
clients, too.
> There's not really a that meaningful distinction between PITR and
> replication using archive_command. Especially when using
> *pause_after.
It is meaningless in "master PITR". It will be master which has new timelineID at
unexpected timing.
> I think this feature will be used in a lot of scenarios in
> which PITR is currently used.
We have to judge which is better, we get something potential or to protect stupid.
And we had better to wait author's comment...
Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John R Pierce | 2013-12-11 06:40:31 | Re: Case sensitivity |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-12-11 06:34:52 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |