On 7/28/06, Arnaud Lesauvage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Csaba Nagy wrote: > I found that PITR using WAL shipping is not protecting against all > failure scenarios... it sure will help if the primary machine's hardware > fails, but in one case it was useless for us: the primary had a linux > kernel with buggy XFS code (that's what I think it was, cause we never > found out for sure) and we did use XFS for the data partition, and at > one point it started to get corruptions at the data page level. The > corruption was promptly transferred to the standby, and therefore it was > also unusable... we had to recover from a backup, with the related > downtime. Not good for business... > OK, but corruption at the data page level is a very unlikely event, isn't it ?
yes, and that is not a pitr problem, that is a data corruption problem. i am very suspicious that slony style replication would provide any sort of defense against replicating from a machine which is changing bytes from a to b, etc. i think the best defense against *that* sort of problem would be synchronous replication via pgpool. merlin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
