On 04/10/2013 11:40 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
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.
How so? Shared disk doesn't use replication. The point I was trying to make is that replication requires synchronization between two disparate servers, and verifying they have exactly the same data is a non-trivial exercise. Even a single transaction after a failover (effectively) negates the old server because there's no easy "catch up" mechanism yet.
Even if this isn't necessarily true, it's the safest approach IMO. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-676-8870 stho...@optionshouse.com ______________________________________________ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
