| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Pirotte <dpirotte(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Promoting sync slave to master without incrementing timeline counter? |
| Date: | 2012-06-22 06:27:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLZTEGyRcenYWKJ=ADsneHG7im_mkvSBByk_Tdp1JzbSA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 21 June 2012 16:10, David Pirotte <dpirotte(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So, given a hard failure (i.e. power loss) of the master, `pg_ctl promote`
> provides availability more quickly, but `pg_ctl restart` provides data
> redundancy more quickly.
Not sure where this idea of "more quickly" comes from. Can you explain?
> Are there risks associated with the `pg_ctl
> restart` approach, or is it safe to use?
PostgreSQL supports both, why do you mention just one of them as a
potential risk?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Schwarzer | 2012-06-22 06:49:02 | Re: Error message "psql: could not connect to server: No such file or directory" |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2012-06-22 01:08:11 | Re: Promoting sync slave to master without incrementing timeline counter? |