From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Problem with Streaming Replication
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:05:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4E0C90C2.3000207@2ndQuadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1309436503938-4538638.post@n5.nabble.com>
References: <1309436503938-4538638.post@n5.nabble.com>
On 06/30/2011 08:21 AM, abraao895 wrote:
> - The HD of the PC1(master) dead. The WAL file don't have replicated because
> it is a asynchronous proccess and suppose that this already didn't have
> happened.
>
> - The PC2(slave) doesn't have the last record.
>
That's exactly how some transaction loss can happen in this situation.
Some software worried about this problem maintains a small transaction
log outside of the database, so that it's possible to reconstruct really
critical information after such a disaster.
In PostgreSQL 9.1, due to be released later this year, synchronous
replication is available on a per-transaction basis. That resolves the
concern you have--important transactions can be confirmed on one of the
slaves as a requirement before they commit.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
Comprehensive and Customized PostgreSQL Training Classes:
http://www.2ndquadrant.us/postgresql-training/
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: greg@2ndQuadrant.com
Subject: Re: Problem with Streaming Replication
In-Reply-To: <4E0C90C2.3000207@2ndQuadrant.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