On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 20:08 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Yes, that can happen. As people will no doubt observe, this seems to be > > an argument for wait-forever. What we actually need is a wait that lasts > > longer than it takes for us to decide to failover, if the standby is > > actually up and this is some kind of split brain situation. That way the > > clients are still waiting when failover occurs. WAL is missing, but > > since we didn't acknowledge the client we are OK to treat that situation > > as if it were an abort. > > Oracle Data Guard in the maximum availability mode behaves that way? > > I'm sure that you are implementing something like the maximum availability > mode rather than the maximum protection one. So I'd like to know how > the data loss situation I described can be avoided in the maximum availability > mode.
This is important, so I am taking time to formulate a full reply. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
