Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I think it's safe as long as you don't try to reuse the cluster
after a crash (be it due to OS error, power outage, ...). If the
primary crashes for any reasons, you have to start from scratch,
otherwise there might be silent corruption as you've described.
Hi,
On 24.10.2013 23:18, Alban Hertroys wrote:
On Oct 24, 2013, at 18:10, maillis...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the answers. I'm still confused. If fsync is not
replicated to the slave, then how is replication affected by a
corrupt master? If the master dies and there's a commit
DDT wrote:
According to manual, when you set synchronous_commit to on, the transaction
commits will wait until
master and slave flush the commit record of transaction to the physical
storage, so I think even if
turn off the fsync on master is safe for data consistency and data will not
be
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, maillis...@gmail.com wrote:
Newb question.
I'm running 9.1 with a slave using streaming replication. A coworker wants
to turn off fsync on the master and insists that the slave will still be in
a usable state if there is a failure on the master. We all know
On 24 October 2013 15:04, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, maillis...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, is there still danger to the slave
in this kind of setup?
No, I think.
Corruption due to fsync being off on the master will be
Thank you for the answers. I'm still confused. If fsync is not replicated
to the slave, then how is replication affected by a corrupt master? If the
master dies and there's a commit recorded in the wal log that didn't
actually happen, wouldn't the slave still be expected to be in a sane
state,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:39 PM, maillis...@gmail.com wrote:
Newb question.
I'm running 9.1 with a slave using streaming replication. A coworker wants
to turn off fsync on the master and insists that the slave will still be in
a usable state if there is a failure on the master.
This would
On Oct 24, 2013, at 18:10, maillis...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the answers. I'm still confused. If fsync is not replicated to
the slave, then how is replication affected by a corrupt master? If the
master dies and there's a commit recorded in the wal log that didn't actually
happen,
and synchronous_commit
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/wal-intro.html
-- Original --
From: maillists0;maillis...@gmail.com;
Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 09:39 AM
To: pgsql-generalpgsql-general@postgresql.org;
Subject: [GENERAL] Replication and fsync
Newb question.
I'm running 9.1 with a slave using streaming replication. A coworker wants
to turn off fsync on the master and insists that the slave will still be in
a usable state if there is a failure on the master. We all know that
turning off fsync is a bad idea, but I was under the
10 matches
Mail list logo
