[ClusterLabs] Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

[Maciej S]

I was wondering if anyone can give a plain answer if fencing is really
needed in case there are no shared resources being used (as far as I define
shared resource).

We want to use PAF or other Postgres (with replicated data files on the
local drives) failover agent together with Corosync, Pacemaker and virtual
IP resource and I am wondering if there is a need for fencing (which is
very close bind to an infrastructure) if a Pacemaker is already controlling
resources state. I know that in failover case there might be a need to add
functionality to recover master that entered dirty shutdown state (eg. in
case of power outage), but I can't see any case where fencing is really
necessary. Am I wrong?

I was looking for a strict answer but I couldn't find one...

Regards,
Maciej
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20190211/e7c64a36/attachment.html>