| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "Hot standby"? |
| Date: | 2009-08-11 21:13:21 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070908111413r1574b24fj765600d253a0c1ec@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> So really, the "streaming replication" patch should be called "hot
> standby",
No. AIUI, hot standby means that when your primary falls over, the
secondary automatically promotes itself and takes over. It requires
things like heartbeat monitoring and STONITH and is unrelated to
anything we currently have under consideration.
> and the "hot standby" patch should be called "read only slaves"?
Yes.
> And *why* can't we call it log-based replication?
Well, we can call it anything we want. For example, up until now
we've been calling it "hot standby", even though that's clearly wrong.
:-)
But on the merits: log-based replication is, I think, what we already
have. Both of these patches do things that make it better. Streaming
replication (fka synch rep) makes it more nearly real-time, and
read-only slaves (fka hot standby) makes the standby server more
useful. But neither is ADDING log-based replication, they're both
IMPROVING it, in different ways.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-11 21:14:12 | Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-08-11 21:11:28 | Re: "Hot standby"? |