From: Fujii Masao on
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Having concluded I really need to start playing with hot standby, I started
> looking for documentation on the subject. I found what I was looking for; I
> also found this page[1], which, it seems, ought to mention hot standby.
> Comments?
>
> [1] http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/high-availability.html

+1

At least, it should be mentioned that the slave can answer
read-only queries in "Warm Standby Using Point-In-Time Recovery".
And so "Table 25-1" should be changed.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Simon Riggs on
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 18:34 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Having concluded I really need to start playing with hot standby, I started
> > looking for documentation on the subject. I found what I was looking for; I
> > also found this page[1], which, it seems, ought to mention hot standby.
> > Comments?
> >
> > [1] http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/high-availability.html
>
> +1
>
> At least, it should be mentioned that the slave can answer
> read-only queries in "Warm Standby Using Point-In-Time Recovery".
> And so "Table 25-1" should be changed.

OK, will add.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Bruce Momjian on
Joshua Tolley wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Having concluded I really need to start playing with hot standby, I started
> looking for documentation on the subject. I found what I was looking for; I
> also found this page[1], which, it seems, ought to mention hot standby.
> Comments?
>
> [1] http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/high-availability.html

Ah, I now realize it only mentions "warm" standby, not "hot", so I just
updated the documentation to reflect that; you can see it here:

http://momjian.us/tmp/pgsql/high-availability.html

Warm and Hot Standby Using Point-In-Time Recovery (PITR)

Do we want to call the feature "hot standby"? Is a read-only standby a
"standby" or a "slave"?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Markus Wanner on
Bruce,

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ah, I now realize it only mentions "warm" standby, not "hot", so I just
> updated the documentation to reflect that; you can see it here:

Maybe the table below also needs an update, because unlike "Warm Standby
using PITR", a hot standby accepts read-only queries and can be
configured to not loose data on master failure.

> Do we want to call the feature "hot standby"? Is a read-only standby a
> "standby" or a "slave"?

I think hot standby is pretty much the term, now.

Regards

Markus Wanner

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Josh Berkus on

> I've always thought this feature was misnamed and nothing has happened
> to change my mind, but it's not clear whether I'm in the majority.

I'm afraid force of habit is more powerful than correctness on this one.
It's going to be HS/SR whether that's perfectly correct or not.

--Josh Berkus


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers