On 06/30/2011 08:21 AM, abraao895 wrote:
- The HD of the PC1(master) dead. The WAL file don't have replicated because it is a asynchronous proccess and suppose that this already didn't have happened. - The PC2(slave) doesn't have the last record.
That's exactly how some transaction loss can happen in this situation. Some software worried about this problem maintains a small transaction log outside of the database, so that it's possible to reconstruct really critical information after such a disaster.
In PostgreSQL 9.1, due to be released later this year, synchronous replication is available on a per-transaction basis. That resolves the concern you have--important transactions can be confirmed on one of the slaves as a requirement before they commit.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Baltimore, MD Comprehensive and Customized PostgreSQL Training Classes: http://www.2ndquadrant.us/postgresql-training/ -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
