| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pedro Sam <pesam(at)rim(dot)com>, senthilnathan <senthilnathan(dot)t(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Timeline Conflict |
| Date: | 2011-08-02 20:21:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLx3TLWDapgwNGYEn8aoLO6iGWRtF3J6mFaV8g-=wqVDA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Basically this is formalizing good practice for failing over nodes and
> re-syncing to a promoted master. I will say though that one
> unfortunate side effect of using HS/SR for HA is that you need *four*
> servers to really protect yourself against data loss -- one master and
> three standbys. With a master and two standbys, you face a risk of
> significant loss if the promoted master dies while the remaining
> standby is syncing up to it. What you are looking for is a 'hot sync'
> so that standbys could be promoted in such a way that does not require
> a full sync -- that doesn't exist right now AFAIK.
repmgr is specifically designed to reduce the time for a "follow"
action to a very small amount.
There is no risk of significant loss.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-08-03 01:38:28 | Re: Timeline Conflict |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-08-02 20:18:50 | Re: Timeline Conflict |