Mark Mielke wrote:
> On 07/08/2009 09:59 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I think the interesting bit is when you're at this point and the
>> connection between the master and slave goes down for a couple days.
>> How do you handle that?
>
> Been following with great interest...
>
> If the updates are not performed at a regular enough interval, the slave
> is not truly a functioning standby. I think it's a different problem
> domain, probably best served by the existing pg_standby support? If the
> slave can be out of touch with the master for an extended period of
> time, near real time logs provide no additional benefit over just
> shipping the archived WAL logs and running the standby in continuous
> recovery mode?
Might be easier to set up than pg_standby..
But more importantly, it can happen by accident. Someone trips on the
power plug of the slave on Friday, and it goes unnoticed until Monday
when DBA comes to work.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com