Re: failover vs. read only queries - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: failover vs. read only queries
Date
Msg-id AANLkTino18rDhE3NJQVMz7C-hhKM0NfH7fJ2oSo9jxAS@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: failover vs. read only queries  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 07:36 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>
>> On 10/06/10 14:07, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>>
>>> The one of top 3 questions I got
>>> when we propose them our HA solution is, "how long will it take to
>>> do failover when the master DB crashes?"
>>>
>>
>> Same here +1
>
> In that case, wouldn't they set max_standby_delay to 0?  In which case the
> failover problem goes away, no?

Yes, but I guess they'd also like to run read only queries on the standby.
Setting max_standby_delay to 0 would prevent them from doing that because
the conflict with the replay of the VACUUM or HOT record would often happen.
vacuum_defer_cleanup_age would be helpful for that case, but it seems to be
hard to tune that.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Takahiro Itagaki
Date:
Subject: Re: ps display "waiting for max_standby_delay"
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age