> I pointed out that the NTT solution is synchronous because Tom said in
> the first part of his email that:
>
> > In practice, simple asynchronous single-master-multiple-slave
> > replication covers a respectable fraction of use cases, so we have
> > concluded that we should allow such a feature to be included in the
> > core project.
>
> ... and yet "the most appropriate base technology for this" is
> synchronous and maybe I should have also pointed out in my previous mail
> is that it doesn't support multiple slaves.
I don't think that you need too many slaves in sync mode.
Probably 1-st slave sync and others async from there on will be good
enough.
> Also, as other have pointed out there are different interpretations of
> "synchronous" depending on wether the WAL data has reached the other end
> of the network connection, a safe disk checkpoint or the slave DB itself.
Probably all DRBD-s levels ( A) data sent to network, B) data received,
C) data written to disk) should be supported + C1) data replayed in
slave DB. C1 meaning that it can be done in parallel with C)
Then each DBA can set it up depending on what he trusts - network,
slave's power supply or slaves' disk.
Also, the case of slave failure should be addressed. I don't think that
the best solution is halting all ops on master if slave/network fails.
Maybe we should allow also a setup with 2-3 slaves, where operations can
continue when at least 1 slave is "syncing" ?
--------------
Hannu
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
No comments:
Post a Comment