Re: Synchronization levels in SR - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Synchronization levels in SR
Date
Msg-id 1283873371.1834.15302.camel@ebony
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Synchronization levels in SR  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Synchronization levels in SR
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 11:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> writes:
> > On 09/07/2010 04:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> In theory, that's true, but if we do that, then there's an even bigger
> >> problem: the slave might have replayed WAL ahead of the master
> >> location; therefore the slave is now corrupt and a new base backup
> >> must be taken.
> 
> > The slave isn't corrupt. It would suffice to "late abort" committed 
> > transactions the master doesn't know about.
> 
> Oh yes it is.  If the slave replays WAL that didn't happen on the
> master, it might for instance have heap tuples in TID slots that are
> empty on the master, or index pages laid out differently from the
> master.  Trying to apply additional WAL from the master will fail badly.
> 
> We can *not* allow the slave to replay WAL ahead of what is known
> committed to disk on the master.  The only way to make that safe
> is the compare-notes-and-ship-WAL-back approach that Robert mentioned.
> 
> If you feel that decoupling WAL application is absolutely essential
> to have a credible feature, then you'd better bite the bullet and
> start working on the ship-WAL-back code.

Why not just failover? 

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: git: uh-oh