Greetings, * Laurenz Albe (laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > The downside with any snapshot-style approach is that it means that when > > you have a failure, you have to go through and replay all the WAL since > > the last checkpoint, which is single-threaded and can take a large > > amount of time. > > > > When doing your testing, I'd strongly recommend that you have a large > > max_wal_size, run a large pgbench which writes a lot of data, and see > > how long a failover takes with this system. > > Then "checkpoint_timeout" should also be large, right? Having a larger checkpoint timeout would also show that this method of failover runs the risk of there being a very long time required between when the failure is detected and when the new primary is online. Thanks! Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
