Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I think it's safe as long as you don't try to reuse the cluster
> after a crash (be it due to OS error, power outage, ...). If the
> primary crashes for any reasons, you have to start from scratch,
> otherwise there might be silent corruption as you've described.
I agree.
Hi,
On 24.10.2013 23:18, Alban Hertroys wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2013, at 18:10, maillis...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the answers. I'm still confused. If fsync is not
>> replicated to the slave, then how is replication affected by a
>> corrupt master? If the master dies and there's a commit
DDT wrote:
> According to manual, when you set "synchronous_commit" to on, the transaction
> commits will wait until
> master and slave flush the commit record of transaction to the physical
> storage, so I think even if
> turn off the fsync on master is safe for data consistency and data will no
wal.html#GUC-FSYNC
fsync and synchronous_commit
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/wal-intro.html
-- Original --
From: "maillists0";;
Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 09:39 AM
To: "pgsql-general";
Subject: [GENERAL] Replication and fsyn
On Oct 24, 2013, at 18:10, maillis...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you for the answers. I'm still confused. If fsync is not replicated to
> the slave, then how is replication affected by a corrupt master? If the
> master dies and there's a commit recorded in the wal log that didn't actually
> happe
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:39 PM, wrote:
> Newb question.
>
> I'm running 9.1 with a slave using streaming replication. A coworker wants
> to turn off fsync on the master and insists that the slave will still be in
> a usable state if there is a failure on the master.
>
This would only be safe if
Thank you for the answers. I'm still confused. If fsync is not replicated
to the slave, then how is replication affected by a corrupt master? If the
master dies and there's a commit recorded in the wal log that didn't
actually happen, wouldn't the slave still be expected to be in a sane
state, with
On 24 October 2013 15:04, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, wrote:
>> Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, is there still danger to the slave
>> in this kind of setup?
>
> No, I think.
Corruption due to fsync being off on the master will be replicated to
the slave, or - if corruption
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, wrote:
> Newb question.
>
> I'm running 9.1 with a slave using streaming replication. A coworker wants
> to turn off fsync on the master and insists that the slave will still be in
> a usable state if there is a failure on the master. We all know that turning
> o
Newb question.
I'm running 9.1 with a slave using streaming replication. A coworker wants
to turn off fsync on the master and insists that the slave will still be in
a usable state if there is a failure on the master. We all know that
turning off fsync is a bad idea, but I was under the impression
10 matches
Mail list logo
