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

[Ulrich Windl]

>>> Maciej S <internet at swierki.com> schrieb am 11.02.2019 um 12:34 in Nachricht
<CAJtytUPk_ZNzpmFaq98aX3fXLHvCksK88PdSu=yv0-nfurcWQg at mail.gmail.com>:
> 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...

I think you can try without.

(as it was on TV yesterday: In "Terminator 2" Arnie is driving motorcycle without a helmet... So if you feel you can do pacemaker without fencing, go ahead ;-)

> 
> Regards,
> Maciej