Thanks. Yes, failovers are definitely not desireable as switchovers. I intend to use it though with Nagios as the monitor, triggering the event handler to failover on hard non-OK state. Can live with a few mins of lost records(the application should be doing inserts only) but not more than 10 mins of downtime. Any advice or comment?
Regards On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:29:15 -0500, "Andrew Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:06:06PM -0800, Andrew Ng wrote: > > replicated to the slave, but the sequence's last value is still not > > updated at the slave. As such, subsequent inserts would fail with > > I don't think so. The snapshots are applied in a transaction. So > the setval() actually happens in the same transaction: you wouldn't > see the data at all. The danger, of course, is that you lose data on > failover. That's a known risk with failover, which is why there's > such an emphasis on doing controlled switchover, if possible. Don't > wait until the machine's dead: if there's evidence of trouble on your > origin, switch over sooner. > > A > > > -- > Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant- > garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism. > --Brad Holland > _______________________________________________ > Slony1-general mailing list > [email protected] > http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general -- Andrew Ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
