On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Shaun Thomas <stho...@optionshouse.com> wrote: > On 04/10/2013 09:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> IOW, I wouldn't consider skipping the rsync even if I had a feature >> like this. > > > Totally. Out in the field, we consider the "old" database corrupt the moment > we fail over.
Strange. If this is really true, shared disk failover solution is fundamentally broken because the standby needs to start up with the shared "corrupted" database at the failover. Also, we cannot trust the crash recovery at all if we adopt the same logic as you think. I think that there are the cases where we can replay and reuse the old database even after PostgreSQL crashes. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
