| From: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)pgexperts(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Data corruption issues using streaming replication on 9.0.14/9.2.5/9.3.1 |
| Date: | 2013-11-20 00:10:45 |
| Message-ID: | 7EC18CC7-42B0-43C6-BD79-0CAEDF0E3DFD@pgexperts.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 19, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2013-11-19 15:53:36 -0800, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>> From my understanding, the problem only occurs over streaming
>> replication; if the secondary was never a hot standby, and only used
>> the archived WAL segments, that would be safe. Is that correct?
>
> Not entirely.
>
> It's related to a standby running with hot_standby=on. Both archive
> based and streaming replication can be used with hot_standby=on or off.
>
So, does that mean that restoring from PITR based backups from tools like barman and wal-e could exhibit the same issue if hot_standby=on was in the postgresql.conf?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-11-20 03:03:31 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-20 00:09:08 | Re: Data corruption issues using streaming replication on 9.0.14/9.2.5/9.3.1 |