| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-07-15 06:58:59 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jL8k-ELRYoC6JuGY2Kc=E2EWG6A9nFfAa4DNttO+Vhj+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2 July 2015 at 19:50, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> So there's two parts to this:
>
> 1. I need to ensure that data is replicated to X places.
>
> 2. I need to *know* which places data was synchronously replicated to
> when the master goes down.
>
> My entire point is that (1) alone is useless unless you also have (2).
> And do note that I'm talking about information on the replica, not on
> the master, since in any failure situation we don't have the old master
> around to check.
>
You might *think* you know, but given we are in this situation because of
an unexpected failure, it seems strange to specifically avoid checking
before you proceed.
Bacon not Aristotle.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yourfriend | 2015-07-15 07:01:18 | Re: Could be improved point of UPSERT |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-07-15 06:53:31 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |