From: Amador Alvarez <aalvarez@d2.com>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Looking for a better approach for pacemaker, DRDB VS pgsql 9.1 standby feature.
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:12:22 -0700
Message-ID: <503BC696.2080706@d2.com> (raw)
Hi there,
I am setting up a 2 node database cluster (Master/standby) on pgsql 9.1
and it looks to me that drdb option could be easier to maintain & keep
running after several failovers on a row, specially because after a
failover operation it is not too friendly to set back up automatically
the former primary as the new standby. Besides I would not like to
automate an rsync over the same data directory as it could be destroyed
by a 'wrong' syncing .
Any comments are welcome !
Thanks in advance,
A.A.
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: aalvarez@d2.com
Subject: Re: Looking for a better approach for pacemaker, DRDB VS pgsql 9.1 standby feature.
In-Reply-To: <503BC696.2080706@d2.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