From: | Bala Venkat <akpgeek(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replication Question |
Date: | 2016-02-02 16:42:58 |
Message-ID: | CACnhOf+FKExrM6janbgZOA+f2RE46_ydsJ42zh5i6_N5YcdC8w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks for the help. We need an upgrade on the DB for the solution. I
checked your suggestion and it works on versions from 9.1 and above
Regards
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Kretschmer <
akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> wrote:
> Bala Venkat <akpgeek(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Hi there -
> >
> > We have a set up where there is One master streaming to 3
> Slaves .
> > 2 slaves are in our DR environment. One is the prod environment.
> >
> > Wanted to make the DR as primary. I know we can make the one
> of the
> > slave in DR to primary. If I want to keep the other slave as slave
> connecting
> > to the new Master DR , is it possible ? or I have to set the whole
> streaming
> > process again in DR ? Can you please share your experience ?
>
> should be possible, but you have to change the recovery.conf to point
> out to the new master, and, of course, the new master should stream the
> wals (wal_sender, proper pg_hba.conf and so on).
>
>
> Andreas
> --
> Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
> unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds)
> "If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown)
> Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dane Foster | 2016-02-02 17:31:19 | Re: Check constraints and function volatility categories |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2016-02-02 15:42:25 | Re: strange sql behavior |