Message-Id: <4DA30AF0020000250003C67D@gw.wicourts.gov>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:06:40 -0500
From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: "Gerhard Hintermayer" <gerhard.hintermayer@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-admin" <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: multiple hot standby streaming replication
	scenario with "rotating" the primary server
References: <BANLkTinvBfV3MuL6k3PJWxbhTg2qwW4KQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTiksRW05KZtJDs6Wf75wKD2R+bjGUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DA2E174020000250003C650@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<BANLkTikKGej=BmKaBUPcQu5z16J3J085vw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DA2F31C020000250003C665@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<BANLkTik1CO13J8gj6HbYKqFn9FCWkHjDYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DA2FA41020000250003C672@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<BANLkTinrWpuRRXYvH=JGkdq2ZnZJ35sPLw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinrWpuRRXYvH=JGkdq2ZnZJ35sPLw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Gerhard Hintermayer <gerhard.hintermayer@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Just checked my indices, looks like the only table in all my 5
> DB's that has a hash index is the one I ran tests on.
 
Well, actually that's pretty lucky.  If you'd tested with other
indexes, you might have gone live with the broken index.  I would
seriously consider converting the index to btree at this point, to
simplify life, unless you can show a significant performance benefit
with the hash index running your actual application mix.
 
> But the other thing is the huge amount of transfer volume when
> rsyncing the data dir from the new primary to set up the new
> replication slaves. But this should go away when I stop using
> REINDEX DATABASE, right ?
 
That should make a big difference, yeah.
 
-Kevin