| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <chinnaobi(at)gmail(dot)com>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hot standby PSQL 9.1 Windows 2008 Servers |
| Date: | 2012-05-31 16:24:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4FC754DA0200002500047F12@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
chinnaobi wrote:
> You mean when the primary which is going to switch its role to
> standby might not have sent all the WAL records to the standby and
> If it is switched to standby it has more WAL records than the
> standby which is now serves as primary. Is it ??
What happens when there is a network fault between the primary and
the standby, but not between the primary and some of the clients
updating it? Similarly, if this is asynchronous replication, what if
there have been commits on the primary which were still in the
network buffer when the primary crashed?
Clean automated failover is not a trivial task. If you are writing
your own, it would be best to follow the steps recommended in the
documentation rather closely.
-Kevin
| From: | chinnaobi <chinnaobi(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: hot standby PSQL 9.1 Windows 2008 Servers |
| Date: | 2012-05-31 17:19:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1338484756945-5710830.post@n5.nabble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your reply. Yeah I am writing an application using powershell,
it's true it is not trivial and especially a guy like me who has no idea on
database.
You raised all the cases which I am muddling with, But currently I am
testing this setup:
Always standby server is configured from base backup and restore from
storage server then start streaming replication(asynchronous). Base backups
are taken frequently.
I am sure there is some data loss during switching. Still researching how to
do it clean. suggest me if you have any good papers on this ..
Reddy.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Re-hot-standby-PSQL-9-1-Windows-2008-Servers-tp5710824p5710830.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| From: | chinnaobi <chinnaobi(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: hot standby PSQL 9.1 Windows 2008 Servers |
| Date: | 2012-05-31 17:22:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1338484978147-5710832.post@n5.nabble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry to mention, In my setup the primary and standby servers receive same
traffic, so no issue with the
"network fault between the primary and the standby, but not between the
primary and some of the clients updating it"
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Re-hot-standby-PSQL-9-1-Windows-2008-Servers-tp5710824p5710832.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.