On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/19/12, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The work around would be for the master to refuse to automatically >>> restart after a crash, insisting on a fail-over instead (or a manual >>> forcing of recovery)? >> >> I suppose that would work, but I think Simon's idea is better: don't >> let the slave replay the WAL until either (a) it's promoted or (b) the >> master finishes the fsync. That boils down to adding some more >> handshaking to the replication protocol, I think. > > Alternative c) is that the master automatically recovers from a crash, > but doesn't replay that particular wal record because it doesn't find > it on disk, so the slave has to be instructed to throw it away.
Right. Which kind of stinks. > (Or > perhaps the slave could feed the wal back to the master, so the master > could replay it?) Yes, that would be a very nice enhancement, I think. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
