* On 10/8/10, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> Do we really need that? > > Yes. But if there is no unsent WAL when the master goes down, > we can start new standby without new backup by copying the > timeline history file from new master to new standby and > setting recovery_target_timeline to 'latest'. In this case, > new standby advances the recovery to the latest timeline ID > which new master uses before connecting to the master. > > This seems to have been successful in my test environment. > Though I'm missing something. > >> I don't think that's acceptable, we'll need to fix >> that if that's the case. > > Agreed. > >> You can cross timelines with the archive, though. But IIRC there was some >> issue with that too, you needed to restart the standbys because the >> standby >> scans what timelines exist at the beginning of recovery, and won't notice >> new timelines that appear after that? > > Yes. > >> We need to address that, apart from any of the other things discussed wrt. >> synchronous replication. It will benefit asynchronous replication too. >> IMHO >> *that* is the next thing we should do, the next patch we commit. > > You mean to commit that capability before synchronous replication? If so, > I disagree with you. I think that it's not easy to address that problem. > So I'm worried about that implementing that capability first means the miss > of sync rep in 9.1. > > Regards, > > -- > Fujii Masao > NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION > NTT Open Source Software Center > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
-- Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
