Robert, > > That WAL has effectively disappeared from the > > master, but is still present on the slave. Now the master comes up > > and starts processing read-write transactions again, and generates a > > new and different 1kB of WAL. Hilarity ensues, because the two > > machines are now out of step with each other.
Yeah, you'd need some kind of instant failover and STONITH. That is, any interruption on the master would be a failover situation. While that seems conceivable for crashes, consider that a planned restart of the master might be an issue, and an OOM-kill would certainly be. > > You could possibly fix this by making provision for the master to > > connect to the slave on start-up and stream WAL "backwards" from slave > > to master. That'd be pretty spiffy. Ouch, now you're making my head hurt. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
