On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 12:01:46PM +0200, Thomas Lopatic wrote:
> Hmmm. Is this really a problem? Couldn't the secondary DRBD node simply
> stop accepting replicated data from the primary node before firing up
> postmaster? Then the postmaster on the primary DRBD node would only
> write locally and not interfere with the secondary DRBD node.
I presume that is possible (you're right that, since it's a block
device under OS control, you should be able to tell it which way to
behave). My fairly quick reading of the docs doesn't tell me that it
works this way, though, so I have to assume it doesn't. (It's not
the question of what it could do, but what it actually does, that's
the important one for implementors.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
--attr. John Maynard Keynes
