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
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. |