On Saturday, June 15, 2013 1:19 PM Sawada Masahiko wrote: On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote: > On Friday, June 14, 2013 2:42 PM Samrat Revagade wrote: >> Hello, > >>> We have already started a discussion on pgsql-hackers for the problem of >>> taking fresh backup during the failback operation here is the link for that: >>> >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAF8Q-Gxg3PQTf71NVECe-6OzRaew5pWhk7yQtb >>> jgwrfu513...@mail.gmail.com >>> >>> Let me again summarize the problem we are trying to address. >> >> >> How will you take care of extra WAL on old master during recovery. If it >> plays the WAL which has not reached new-master, it can be a problem.
> you means that there is possible that old master's data ahead of new > master's data. I mean to say is that WAL of old master can be ahead of new master. I understood that data files of old master can't be ahead, but I think WAL can be ahead. > so there is inconsistent data between those server when fail back. right? > if so , there is not possible inconsistent. because if you use GUC option > as his propose (i.g., failback_safe_standby_mode = remote_flush), > when old master is working fine, all file system level changes aren't > done before WAL replicated. Would the propose patch will take care that old master's WAL is also not ahead in some way? If yes, I think i am missing some point. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
