From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Streaming-only Remastering |
Date: | 2012-06-17 20:46:24 |
Message-ID: | CAAZKuFaJ_+GCxmJ2Z_8D2qzy6b2Qk1rdzfLsdRMoGJ1PAsajzQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Instead of using re-synchronization (e.g. repmgr in its relation to
>> rsync), I intend to proxy and also inspect the streaming replication
>> traffic and then quiesce all standbys and figure out what node is
>> farthest ahead. Once I figure out the node that is farthest ahead, if
>> it is not a node that is eligible for promotion to the master, I need
>> to exchange its changes to nodes that are eligible for promotion[0],
>> and then promote one of those, repointing all other standbys to that
>> node. This must all take place nominally within a second or thirty.
>> Conceptually it is simple, but mechanically it's somewhat intense,
>> especially in relation to the inconvenience of doing this incorrectly.
>
> So you're suggesting that it would be great to be able to
> double-remaster? i.e. given OM = Original Master, 1S = standby furthest
> ahead, NM = desired new master, to do:
Yeah. Although it seems like it would degenerate to single-remastering
applied a couple times, no?
--
fdr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Cloos | 2012-06-17 22:51:51 | Testing 9.2 in ~production environment |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-17 20:26:33 | Re: sortsupport for text |