Re: PostgreSQL clustering (shared disk)

"Mikko Partio" <mpartio@gmail.com> writes:
> This was my original intention. I'm still quite hesitant to trust the
> fencing devices ability to quarantee that only one postmaster at a time is
> running, because of the disastrous possibility of corrupting the whole
> database.

Making that guarantee is a fencing device's only excuse for existence.
So I think you should trust that a properly-implemented fence will do
what it's claimed to do.

On the other side of the coin, I have little confidence in DRBD
providing the storage semantics we need (in particular guaranteeing
write ordering).  So that path doesn't sound exactly risk-free either.

            regards, tom lane