Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3713664FDA0 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:52:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64042-07 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:51:57 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail136072.authsmtp.net (outmail136072.authsmtp.net [62.13.136.72]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A0164FD6F for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:51:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail-c187.authsmtp.com (mail-c187.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.33]) by punt9.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id m9KDpt2J050622; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:51:55 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (85-211-69-124.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk [85.211.69.124]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id m9KDpstY051359; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:51:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Strategies for validating WAL-shipping replication From: Simon Riggs To: Florian Weimer Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <82hc77dbgz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <82hc77dbgz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:54:31 +0100 Message-Id: <1224510871.3808.695.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Quench: 4167bfc3-9eae-11dd-8155-001185d377ca X-AuthRoute: OCdxZQATClZOTQEd DAteCiNZVAwpPBRK HVkIKg5MJUcNSQVJ NksadBtFagVbYlpF HGQLW1xEUVl7XGJ/ bg4fZQBDYEtPQQNj TklLRk1QEQdtHhxP WxdlJlkxM2xGfX9z YE8sX3BeWQp+dEB6 EBgHFnAPMDY1dWEe BBRFfwJRdR5Kfh5E YlUrV3QKMjRJBC9q VzwaExUQGwAXEzhP Sx0AIlMfWg4FGSR0 WRkGHDkmAUwDSG0M BjhjMV4dBF4QNEp6 K1Y5XVMTOgMTDQs2 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633235383639.squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk:1378/Kp X-Report-SPAM: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-Virus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system! X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.899 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FS_REPLICA=1.179, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA=0.72 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200810/136 X-Sequence-Number: 30592 On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 08:31 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > We've set up WAL-shipping replication on one of our database servers, > and the question is whether it runs correctly. There's two answers here. The first is that the code used is exactly the same as crash recovery. So if you trust crash recovery you should trust archive recovery, which means WAL shipping. The differences are all about where you start and stop WAL replay. The second is that any form of replication requires testing. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support