On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe. That sounds like a pretty enormous foot-gun to me, considering > that we have no way of recovering from the situation where the standby > gets ahead of the master.
No, we can do that by reconstructing the standby from the backup. And, that situation is not a problem for users including me who prefer to perform a failover when the master goes down. Of course, we can just restart the master in that case, but it's likely to take longer than a failover because there would be a cause of the crash. For example, if the master goes down because of a media crash, the master would never start up unless PITR is performed. So I'm not sure how many users prefer a restart to a failover. > We should get the open item fixed for 9.0 here before we start > worrying about 9.1. Yep, so I was submitting some patches in these days :) 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
