On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That seems like a dangerous assumption. What if the standby had fallen > behind before the failover? It's not safe to failover back to the original > primary in that case. We'd need some kind of safeguards against that. > > For synchronous replication, what if we ensure that the standby has received the WAL (atleast in its buffers) before writing it to disk on the primary ? If we do that, I think the old standby can never fall behind the primary and it would be easy for the old primary to join back the replication without a fresh backup. Of course, this doesn't work for async replication. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
