Re: [HACKERS] The way to know whether the standby has caught up with the master

2011-05-26 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas writes: >> On 25.05.2011 07:42, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> To achieve that, I'm thinking to change walsender so that, when the standby >>> has caught up with the master, it sends back the message indicating that to >>> the standby

Re: [HACKERS] The way to know whether the standby has caught up with the master

2011-05-26 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >>> By the time the standby has received that message, it might not be caught-up >>> anymore because new WAL might've been generated

Re: [HACKERS] The way to know whether the standby has caught up with the master

2011-05-25 Thread David Fetter
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:34:59PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > wrote: > > >> To achieve that, I'm thinking to change walsender so that, when the > >> standby > >> has caught up with the master, it sends back the message indicating that > >> to

Re: [HACKERS] The way to know whether the standby has caught up with the master

2011-05-25 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > On 25.05.2011 07:42, Fujii Masao wrote: >> To achieve that, I'm thinking to change walsender so that, when the standby >> has caught up with the master, it sends back the message indicating that to >> the standby. And I'm thinking to add new function (or view like >> p

Re: [HACKERS] The way to know whether the standby has caught up with the master

2011-05-25 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> To achieve that, I'm thinking to change walsender so that, when the >> standby >> has caught up with the master, it sends back the message indicating that >> to >> the standby. And I'm thinking to add new function (or view like >> pg_s

Re: [HACKERS] The way to know whether the standby has caught up with the master

2011-05-24 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >>> >>> To achieve that, I'm thinking to change walsender so that, when the >>> standby >>> has caught up with the master, it sends back the message indicating that >>> to >>> the standby. An

Re: [HACKERS] The way to know whether the standby has caught up with the master

2011-05-24 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 25.05.2011 07:42, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> For reliable high-availability, when the master crashes, the clusterware >> must >> know whether it can promote the standby safely without any data loss, >> before actually promoting it. IOW,

Re: [HACKERS] The way to know whether the standby has caught up with the master

2011-05-24 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 25.05.2011 07:42, Fujii Masao wrote: For reliable high-availability, when the master crashes, the clusterware must know whether it can promote the standby safely without any data loss, before actually promoting it. IOW, it must know whether the standby has already caught up with the primary. O

[HACKERS] The way to know whether the standby has caught up with the master

2011-05-24 Thread Fujii Masao
Hi, For reliable high-availability, when the master crashes, the clusterware must know whether it can promote the standby safely without any data loss, before actually promoting it. IOW, it must know whether the standby has already caught up with the primary. Otherwise, failover might cause data l