Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Thomas Kellerer
Subject Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby
Date
Msg-id i17itq$g11$1@dough.gmane.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby  (Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby  (Brad Nicholson <bnichols@ca.afilias.info>)
List pgsql-admin
Hi,

Rob Wultsch wrote on 09.07.2010 18:14:
>> I am aware that I can use the 9.0 standby server for read only queries, but
>> that is (currently) not something we need
>>
>
> Taking SQL backups without impacting the master might be something to consider.

Interesting point. Thanks for mentioning that.


>> I'm wondering about the differences when the failover situation occurs. From
>> reading the docs, I get the impression that 9.0's streaming replication
>> might be faster than 8.4's WAL shipping, but otherwise offers the same level
>> of data protection.
>>
>> Is there a difference in how much data could potentially be lost in case of
>> a failover?
>
> 9.0 has streaming replication so much less data would likely be lost.
> WAL logs are generally 16 MB and often shipped when completed.

So my assumption is correct that streaming replication does mean that in case of a failover less transactions are lost?


Regards
Thomas

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Rob Wultsch
Date:
Subject: Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: High Availability: Hot Standby vs. Warm Standby