On 01.01.2011 19:03, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 17:37 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
On 01/01/2011 05:28 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner<ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
well you keep saying that but to be honest I cannot really even see a
usecase for me - what is "only a random one of a set of servers is sync at
any time and I don't really know which one".
It looks easy enough to get to know which one it is. Surely the primary
knows and could update something visible through a system view for
users? This as been asked for before and I was thinking there was a
consensus on this.
well as jeff janes already said - anything that requires the master to
still exist is not useful for a desaster.
Nobody has suggested that the master needs to still exist after a
disaster.
Dimitri just did, see above. I agree it's not very useful.
I don't think there's any other solution to knowing which standby is
ahead than connect to both standbys and ask how far each is. I don't see
a problem with that, whatever middleware handles the failover and
STONITH etc. should be able to do that too.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
