On 04/14/2013 05:56 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-04-12 02:29:01 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> You just shut down the old master and let the standby catch
>>>> up (takas a few microseconds ;) ) before you promote it.
>>>>
>>>> After this you can start up the former master with recovery.conf
>>>> and it will follow nicely.
>>> No. When you shut down the old master, it might not have been
>>> able to send all the WAL records to the standby. I have observed
>>> this situation several times. So in your approach, new standby
>>> might fail to catch up with the master nicely.
>> It seems most of this thread is focusing on the wrong thing then. If we
>> really are only talking about planned failover then we need to solve
>> *that* not some ominous "don't flush data too early" which has
>> noticeable performance and implementation complexity problems.
> At least I'd like to talk about not only planned failover but also normal
> failover.
>
>> I guess youre observing that not everything is replicated because youre
>> doing an immediate shutdown
> No. I did fast shutdown.
>
> At fast shutdown, after walsender sends the checkpoint record and
> closes the replication connection, walreceiver can detect the close
> of connection before receiving all WAL records. This means that,
> even if walsender sends all WAL records, walreceiver cannot always
> receive all of them.
Seems very much like a bug, or at least a missing mode -
synchronous shutdown - where the master will wait for ack from standby(s)
before closing client connection.
>
>> You could even teach the standby not to increment the timeline in that
>> case since thats safe.
> I don't think this is required thanks to recent Heikki's great efforts about
> timelines.
>
> Regards,
>