Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> So, obviously at this point my slave database is corrupted >>> beyond repair due to nothing more than an unexpected crash on >>> the master. >> >> Certainly that's true for resuming replication. From your >> description it sounds as though the slave would be usable for >> purposes of taking over for an unrecoverable master. Or am I >> misunderstanding? > > It depends on what you mean. If you can prevent the slave from > ever reconnecting to the master, then it's still safe to promote > it. Yeah, that's what I meant. > But if the master comes up and starts generating WAL again, and > the slave ever sees any of that WAL (either via SR or via the > archive) then you're toast. Well, if it *applies* what it sees, yes. Effectively you've got transactions from two alternative timelines applied in the same database, which is not going to work. At a minimum we need some way to reliably detect that the incoming WAL stream is starting before some applied WAL record and isn't a match. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers