On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > What was bothering me about the procedure is that it's not clear when > the new slave has reached consistency, in the sense of having used WAL > to clean up any out-of-sync conditions in the base backup it was started > from. So you can't be sure when it's okay to begin treating it as a > trustworthy backup or potential master. We track the minimum safe > recovery point for normal PITR recovery cases, but that mechanism isn't > available for slaves cloned according to this procedure. So the DBA is > just flying blind as to whether the slave is trustworthy yet. I can't > prove that that's what burnt the original complainant, but it fits the > symptoms.
The step 2 of the procedure can ensure that new slave has reached consistency. No? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
