From: | Mihai Gheorghiu <tanhq(at)bigplanet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL capabilities |
Date: | 2000-05-31 13:20:13 |
Message-ID: | 006501bfcb03$0b2b7100$209c103f@new6 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks a lot.
Now, what is WAL?
When is it scheduled for implementation?
>It means Postgres can do a reliable backup (a consistent snapshot) of a
>database without shutting down the database.
>
>What you are asking for is replication, which is not easy to implement,
>and almost damn impossible to get it RIGHT. (*curse at both Sybase and
>Oracle replication servers*). (i.e. how do you resolve replication
>conflicts, how do you resync databases for which you don't have
>transaction logs, etc). I assume for Postgres, replication is a
>possibility after WAL is implemented...
>
>On Tue, 30 May 2000, Mihai Gheorghiu wrote:
>
>> http://networkdna.com/database/index.html mentions that PostgreSQL is
>> capable of "Online backup". What does that exactly mean?
>> I'd like to be able to run a synchronization (in MS Access terms) (or
>> "incremental backup"???), i.e. to have two databases in two locations,
>> normally using only one of them and updating the other one. (Normal full
>> backup looks unrealistic for 300MB over 1/3 of a T1.) In case the
>> communication line between the two centers fails, users at the two ends
>> should be able to use the local databases, and changes made during
>> communication downtime be appended to the other database after
communication
>> resume.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ed Loehr | 2000-05-31 14:26:51 | Re: PostgreSQL capabilities |
Previous Message | Henrik Ridder | 2000-05-31 13:07:56 | No offence..but.. |