From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)lisasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Failback without rebuild |
Date: | 2014-02-07 05:58:25 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS4oqwCu_R+-RR58wQ4cG9Mu-xuHOZ7DurQarut68vbZg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:57 PM, James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)lisasoft(dot)com>wrote:
> I've just noticed that on PostgreSQL 9.3 I can do the following with a
> master node A and a slave node B (as long as I have set
> recovery_target_timeline = 'latest'):
>
> 1. Stop Node A
> 2. Promote Node B
> 3. Attach Node A as slave
>
> This is sufficient for my needs (I know it doesn't cover a crash), can
> anyone see any potential problems with this approach?
>
Yes, node A could get ahead of the point where WAL forked when promoting B.
In this case you cannot reconnect A to B, and need to actually recreate a
node from a fresh base backup, or rewind it. pg_rewind targets the latter,
postgres core is able to to the former, and depending on things like your
environment and/or the size of your server, you might prefer one or the
other.
Regards,
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Sewell | 2014-02-07 06:02:44 | Re: PostgreSQL Failback without rebuild |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2014-02-07 05:42:50 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |