On 8/16/07, Douglas McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Devrim GÜNDÜZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> What I'm pondering here is that is the cluster able to keep the > >> postmasters synchronized at all times so that the database won't get > >> corrupted. > > > > Keep all the $PGDATA in the shared disk. That would minimize data loss > > (Of course, there is still a risk of data loss -- the postmasters are > > not aware of each other and they don't share each other's buffers, etc.) > > It would be much better to have the cluster software only run one > postmaster at a time, starting up the secondary if the primary fails. > That's the usual practice with shared storage.
This was my original intention. I'm still quite hesitant to trust the fencing devices ability to quarantee that only one postmaster at a time is running, because of the disastrous possibility of corrupting the whole database. Maybe I'm just better off using the more simple (crude?) method of drbd + heartbeat? Regards MP
