| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: is sync rep stalled? |
| Date: | 2010-10-05 14:07:02 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinqWgbG0j+havfKVWOPfxwg89ktFuU4AXtvrRCV@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Presumably we will have an option to *not* wait forever? So we would be
> able to set the option prior to running the base backup? So there isn't
> any need to do this rollback trick suggested.
At the initial setup of the standby, we can easily disable wait-forever
option and take a base backup. I'm concerned about the case where the
standby goes down while replication is working. ISTM that we cannot
easily disable wait-forever option for backup because that disablement
resumes the waiting transactions.
In this case, we would need to issue rollback. Or we seem to need to
shut down the master, take a cold backup, start the master and start
the standby from that cold backup. Though I'm not sure if this is really
right procedure..
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-05 14:07:08 | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-05 14:00:00 | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |