Mark Mielke wrote: > On 07/08/2009 09:59 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> I think the interesting bit is when you're at this point and the >> connection between the master and slave goes down for a couple days. >> How do you handle that? > > Been following with great interest... > > If the updates are not performed at a regular enough interval, the slave > is not truly a functioning standby. I think it's a different problem > domain, probably best served by the existing pg_standby support? If the > slave can be out of touch with the master for an extended period of > time, near real time logs provide no additional benefit over just > shipping the archived WAL logs and running the standby in continuous > recovery mode?
Might be easier to set up than pg_standby.. But more importantly, it can happen by accident. Someone trips on the power plug of the slave on Friday, and it goes unnoticed until Monday when DBA comes to work. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers