| From: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mikko Partio <mpartio(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering (shared disk) |
| Date: | 2007-08-16 14:27:44 |
| Message-ID: | 87sl6jtuzj.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com> writes:
>> What I'm pondering here is that is the cluster able to keep the
>> postmasters synchronized at all times so that the database won't get
>> corrupted.
>
> Keep all the $PGDATA in the shared disk. That would minimize data loss
> (Of course, there is still a risk of data loss -- the postmasters are
> not aware of each other and they don't share each other's buffers, etc.)
It would be much better to have the cluster software only run one
postmaster at a time, starting up the secondary if the primary fails.
That's the usual practice with shared storage.
-Doug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Jones | 2007-08-16 14:48:19 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE performance costs? alternatives? |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2007-08-16 14:21:18 | Re: how to get id of currently executed query? |