| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange issues with 9.2 pg_basebackup & replication |
| Date: | 2012-05-17 16:27:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFQyjGhcXGY4H2oW=coVyv8_vMND0f=3aNXR_N+PBYv1w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> > And: if we still have to ship logs, what's the point in even having
>> > cascading replication?
>>
>> At least cascading replication (1) allows you to adopt more flexible
>> configuration of servers,
>
> I'm just pretty shocked. The last time we talked about this, at the end of the 9.1 development cycle, you almost had remastering using streaming-only replication working, you just ran out of time. Now it appears that you've abandoned working on that completely. What's going on?
You mean that "remaster" is, after promoting one of standby servers, to make
remaining standby servers reconnect to new master and resolve the timeline
gap without the shared archive? Yep, that's one of my TODO items, but I'm not
sure if I have enough time to implement that for 9.3....
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-05-17 16:38:55 | Re: Strange issues with 9.2 pg_basebackup & replication |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-05-17 16:26:24 | Re: Why is indexonlyscan so darned slow? |