| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | th240265(at)pegasus(dot)cc(dot)ucf(dot)edu |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL in a shared-disk enviroment |
| Date: | 2004-02-15 16:55:00 |
| Message-ID: | 8716.1076864100@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
th240265(at)pegasus(dot)cc(dot)ucf(dot)edu writes:
> Primary machine is nothing particularily special. Running w/ fsync = true
> (which, correct me if I'm wrong, guarantees that by the time the db reports a
> txn as finished, the txn is guaranteed to be on the disk & in the db).
> Failover has a heartbeat monitor on the primary, if the primary goes down, the
> failover starts up postgre (which then recovers the db, throws out bad txn's,
> etc.) & takes over the primary's IP address. Notice here that postgre is NOT
> running on the failover machine until the primary goes down.
This will work; it's not different from the normal crash/restart scenario.
> Can I do a hot-failover (keep postgre running on the failover machine and simply
> let the failover take over the primary's IP w/out skipping a beat)?
This will NOT work.
> Any other things I need to keep in mind when running two instances of postgre on
> the same db?
There's only one thing to keep in mind: don't try it.
BTW, "Postgres" is spelled and pronounced "Postgres", not "postgre".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-15 17:05:08 | Re: timestamp/date comparison |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-15 16:34:01 | Re: SQL99 IGNORE |