On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have one question for clarity: >> >> If we make all the transactions wait until specified standbys have >> connected to the master, how do we take a base backup from the >> master for those standbys? We seem to be unable to do that because >> pg_start_backup also waits forever. Is this right? > > Well, in my *opinion*, if you've told the master to not "commit to" > *anything* unless it's synchronously replicated, you should already > have a synchronously replicating slave up and running. > > I'm happy with the docs saying (maybe some what more politely): > Before configuring your master to be completly, > wait-fully-synchronous, make sure you have a slave capable of being > synchronous ready. Because if you've told it to never be > un-synchronous, it won't be.
How can we take a base backup for that synchronous standby? You mean that we should disable the wait-forever option, start the master, take a base backup, shut down the master, enable the wait-forever option, start the master, and start the standby from that base backup? 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
