Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > I think the point here is that it's possible to have sync-rep > configurations in which it's impossible to take a base backup.
Sorry to be slow. I still don't understand that problem. I can understand why people want "wait forever", but I can't understand when the following strange idea apply: consider my non-ready standby there as a full member of the distributed setup already. I've been making plenty of noise about this topic in the past, at the beginning of plans for SR in 9.0 IIRC, pushing Heikki into having a worked out state machine to figure out what are the known states of a standby and what we can do with each. We've cancelled that and said it would maybe necessary for Synchronous Replication. Here we go, right? So, first thing first, when is it a good idea to consider a standby that's not yet had its base backup, let alone validated that after taking it the master still has enough WAL for the backup to be valid as far as initialising the slave goes, to consider this broken standby as someone we wait forever on? I say a standby is registered when it's currently "attached" and already able to keep up in async. That's a time when you can slow down the master until this new member catches up to full sync or whatever you've setup. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support Lack of google and archives-fu today means no link to those mails. Yet… -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
