Re: Would you ever recommend Shared Disk Failover for HA?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



* norbert poellmann (np@xxxxxx) wrote:
> is listing a shared disk solution for HA.

Yeah.  Frankly, it's bad advice and we should remove it.  "Rapid
failover" is a bit laughable compared to replication when you consider
that crash recovery can take a very, very long time (depending on how
much outstanding WAL has been written since the last checkpoint but with
extended checkpoints and single-process WAL replay, crash recovery could
be on the order of hours ...) and promoting an online replica takes only

Ditto for block-based replication.

Probably should talk about WAL shipping more as "Physical Replication".

At the least, physical replication should really be listed first and
then logical replication, perhaps even in a distinct "included as part
of PostgreSQL" section with everything else pushed down to "some other
things exist that you could try"...



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Home]     [Postgresql General]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Postgresql PHP]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Databases]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux