On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at> wrote: > Colin Sloss wrote: >> I have been testing the differences between asynchronous and synchronous hot >> standby streaming >> replication on PostgreSQL 9.2.4. There is some push towards synchronous >> replication, but I am finding >> some serious problems, and wonder how other people deal with them. >> >> Action: >> The Slave is unreachable (postgres is stopped, or machine is turned off) >> >> Result: >> Transactions stay open, and add up until connection is allowed between >> Master and Slave again. >> >> My guess: >> Create a script that detects when transactions are being opened, but not >> committed on slave. Alter >> postgresql.conf to comment out synchronous_standby_names and pg_ctl reload. >> This should boot the >> server back to asynchronous, more or less. >> >> Caveats: >> I haven't tested this yet, and I'm not sure what would happen to the >> transactions that started while >> synchronous replication was active. Any guesses? >> >> The whole idea of my solution was to have no single point of failure. This >> seems to create two >> exclusive points of failure, each needing a completely separate reaction. My >> original proposal was >> asynchronous replication, with xlogs being stored on shared storage, and >> DRBD replication to prevent >> it from being a single point of failure. I have never seen it go over 15kbs >> behind in my setup, which >> still results in a very speedy failover. Is it just me, or is that seeming >> better than just >> synchronous replication? >> >> Another caveat I found is that setting up slaves becomes more complicated. >> You have to set up the >> Master in asynchronous style, and then switch it to synchronous only when >> the timing is right. >> Otherwise the transactions will sit there until everything is ready. >> >> Sorry for the onslaught of questions, I don't expect all of them satisfied. >> Please share any >> resolutions to these issues which you guys have discovered. > > One simple guideline first: > If you use synchronous replication, you'll have to have at least two standby > servers or the overall availability of your system will suffer. > > The differences between synchronous and asynchronous replication are mostly: > a) With synchronous replication you cannot lose a committed transaction > during failover. > b) Synchronous replication will slow down your system; the higher the > network latency between the servers, the slower it will get. > > You should work on getting the requirements defined: > - In the case of failover, can you afford to lose a few committed > transactions? > - Are you ready to pay the price for synchronous replication > (second standby if you don't want availability to suffer, slower > database system, more complicated setup and failover procedures)? > > For synchronous replication, keep the servers close together with > a strong network inbetween. > To protect against catastrophes (if that's a requirement), you should > use another asynchronous standby in a distant location.
yeah -- well put. Synchronous replication exists because in some cases even the loss of a single transaction is unacceptable. So it's not really fair to compare vs asynchronous which is more of a 'best effort' system; it in no way guarantees that every transaction is recoverable. That small fudge allows for big optimizations in terms of process simplicity and performance. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
