Re: postgres hot-standby questions.

From: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com>
To: "Graeme B(dot) Bell" <grb(at)skogoglandskap(dot)no>
Cc: Postgres Maillist <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres hot-standby questions.
Date: 2015-03-26 18:42:28
Message-ID: 5EEEF0C6-E675-4E17-992C-525725E5C60F@elevated-dev.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Graeme B. Bell <grb(at)skogoglandskap(dot)no> wrote:
>
> ...I won't be able to directly apply the (promoted) standby's new WAL entries over the top of it.

I see--there's our difference. When I do this, I am willing to stay on the standby for a while if need be.

> A checkpoint or autovacuum might generate a small change/entry in WAL (I don't know this for sure regarding autovacuum; this is a worst case assumption).

I would think autovacuum would have to, since it writes some changes to at least index pages.

> Let's imagine someone follows your advice but is already running a PITR archive with archive_timeout. The recommended timeout is 1 minute. Every minute their server generates a new WAL segment.

Yeah, I'm always assuming streaming replication. If you know you have a delay in replication, you'd better remember that ;-)

--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com
http://www.elevated-dev.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottribe/
(303) 722-0567 voice

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Ribe 2015-03-26 18:48:33 Re: postgres hot-standby questions.
Previous Message Graeme B. Bell 2015-03-26 18:17:50 Re: postgres hot-standby questions.