On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
For 9.1, both master and replica in a sync replication relationship are
required to be fsync'ing to disk. I understand why we had to do that
for our first cut at synch rep. Do you think, though, that it might
become
It's already possible to set fsync=off on the standby if you want. If
there is an OS-level crash you'll need to rebuild the standby, but in
some cases that may be acceptable.
Yes, generally if there's an OS-level crash on cloud hosting, you've
lost the instance anyway.
And Simon has
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
It's already possible to set fsync=off on the standby if you want. If
there is an OS-level crash you'll need to rebuild the standby, but in
some cases that may be acceptable.
... The one other thing would be the
ability not to fsync the master, which
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
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
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
