Re: Standalone synchronous master

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Standalone synchronous master
Date: 2014-01-09 21:33:36
Message-ID: 52CF15B0.70201@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/9/14, 9:01 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Yeah, and I think that the logging command that was suggested allows
>> >for that*if configured correctly*.
> *But* for relying on this, we would also need to make logging
> *synchronous*,
> which would probably not go down well with many people, as it makes things
> even more fragile from availability viewpoint (and slower as well).

Not really... you only care about monitoring performance when the standby has gone AWOL *and* you haven't sent a notification yet. Once you've notified once you're done.

So in this case the master won't go down unless you have a double fault: standby goes down AND you can't get to your monitoring.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-01-09 21:34:55 Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes
Previous Message Gabriele Bartolini 2014-01-09 21:29:53 Re: [PATCH] Relocation of tablespaces in pg_basebackup