On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, quorum commit is helpful for minimizing data loss in comparison
>> with today replication.
>> But in this your case, how can we know which server we should use as
>> the next master server, after local data center got down?
>> If we choose a wrong one, we would get the data loss.
>
> Check the progress of each server, e.g., by using
> pg_last_xlog_replay_location(),
> and choose the server which is ahead of as new master.
>
Thanks. So we can choice the next master server using by checking the
progress of each server, if hot standby is enabled.
And a such procedure is needed even today replication.
I think that the #2 problem which is Josh pointed out seems to be solved;
1. I need to ensure that data is replicated to X places.
2. I need to *know* which places data was synchronously replicated
to when the master goes down.
And we can address #1 problem using quorum commit.
Thought?
Regards,
--
Sawada Masahiko
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
