From: | "Jochem van Dieten" <jochemd(at)oli(dot)tudelft(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Slony-I makes progress |
Date: | 2004-03-07 19:55:16 |
Message-ID: | 1061.130.161.198.25.1078689316.squirrel@secure.oli.tudelft.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck said:
>
> The communication channels are "event" tables. The node daemons
> use listen and notify to send messages from on to another.
> Messages are only exchanged over this when the replication cluster
> configuration is changed or every 10 seconds to tell "new
> replication data has accumulated, come and get it". So I think
> the listen/notify protocol suits well for that.
>
> Some of the functionality happening on an event is already put
> into stored procedures, and the replication engine as well as the
> (to be) admin tools just call those. But that doesn't mean that
> using psql will do the job. There are certain operations that
> need to be
> initiated (the corresponding SP called) on a particular node, not
> just on any available one. Also, these stored procedures take
> arguments, most of which are just the ID numbers of configuration
> objects. Not the ideal user interface.
So some of the regular tasks can be performed from any of the nodes
and some need to be done from a specific node. But if connected to the
right node, they can all be done through sql and the management tool
doesn't need shell access on the nodes. Right?
> There must be some external tools. And to be integrated into any
> automated failover system, it needs to be commandline. So that one
> is a given.
Would a database function that is called from the commandline like
sudo -u postgres psql -c 'select "_MyCluster".useMaster(2,3,4);'
qualify for that?
Jochem
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-07 20:46:14 | Re: 7.4.2 ... all commits in? |
Previous Message | Lee Kindness | 2004-03-07 19:53:47 | Re: Thread safe connection-name mapping in ECPG. Is it |