From: jaime soler <jaime.soler@gmail.com>
To: hydra <hydrapolic@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: replication consistency checking
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:23:39 +0200
Message-ID: <1434284619.3638.10.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG6MAzTPE+ZgFnyYuzZcYKxju2dRyMGRTb9v=mdRZs4kSTyRZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG6MAzRaONc703e1PLQZig9PZVuOeLBr=Cc_CsK9ewr-hXbAag@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL_0b1s9ZE1=ZRVySGE-Q3jLJC4U_O1y_PzN-R1vUbnNb7hKhg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAG6MAzRW57SFsYXXBi213FK1yKrgOcprkxfHEib6+1pLyO6YVA@mail.gmail.com>
<A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70ECCD45F1BC@mail.corp.perceptron.com>
<CAG6MAzQNQPRSsRL6629id-5i2jv6AQZ0y25=YYU2M3CJAOCiTg@mail.gmail.com>
<A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70ECCD45F26C@mail.corp.perceptron.com>
<D9E31A4B-66EB-426D-A418-2C29578E305E@elevated-dev.com>
<191E0C02-9DE3-4B1E-AED3-16F53D19C195@web.de>
<CAG6MAzTPE+ZgFnyYuzZcYKxju2dRyMGRTb9v=mdRZs4kSTyRZQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-admin>
El jue, 11-06-2015 a las 07:14 +0200, hydra escribió:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Jan Lentfer <Jan.Lentfer@web.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Am 05.06.2015 um 16:56 schrieb Scott Ribe
> <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>:
> >
> >> On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Igor Neyman
> <ineyman@perceptron.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem I see with “checksum utility” is that for it to
> work both compared servers should be “static”: not
> transactions while it does its job.
> >
> > Indeed, and that was brought up before and OP seems to be
> ignoring it. What magic does MySQL (supposedly) use to compare
> databases without interfering with updates?
> >
> Also, if I remember the Postgres SR bug correctly, this kind
> of check that Percona provides would not have helped with this
> kind of bug. The corruption did not occur *during* replication
> but only if you restarted the slave because transactions were
> falsely marked as commited or non-commited when the slave came
> up again. You might have noticed the corruption earlier,
> though.
>
>
>
> Ok but we do restart our slaves from time to time (upgrades) so sooner
> or later you would discover if that would be the problem. But maybe it
> will discover bugs/problems that occur *during* replication.
Are you or your company considering to fund "this tool"?, if yes, maybe
you get some feedback at pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
>
>
> > One could imagine a built-in feature in PG which depends on
> using MVCC and having both sides look at the same snapshot.
> (Which would require repeatable reads.)
> I actually think this would a need thing to have (for
> pre-production) test environments, like alpha or beta testing.
>
> Jan
>
>
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: jaime.soler@gmail.com, hydrapolic@gmail.com
Subject: Re: replication consistency checking
In-Reply-To: <1434284619.3638.10.camel@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox