Re: Replication and PITR

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Bo Lorentsen <bl(at)netgroup(dot)dk>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Replication and PITR
Date: 2006-09-21 16:58:58
Message-ID: 1158857938.30652.207.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 17:30 +0200, Bo Lorentsen wrote:
> Hi ...
>
> I have been trying to find a replication to a payment system at the
> company I work, and Slony-I is of cause the first thing that game into
> my attention. But when reading chapter 23.3 in the PG manual, there is
> this comment of PITR used as a replication tool.
>
> I also saw the "pgpitrha" project, and this sounds really nice too, but
> is this a good way to go ? Will PITR be more replication friendly
> in the future or even form the basis for a future buildin async
> replication form ?
>

8.2 makes PITR much easier to use for the situation you'd like. In 8.1,
a WAL might sit around for a while before it becomes full and then sent
off. 8.2 allows you to force a WAL to be sent, and it also allows a
standby mode.

Slony is a good system now, and it's nice because you can use different
versions of PostgreSQL. PITR requires that it's the same version.

However, if you're working with a payment system or accounting system,
you may need synchronous replication. With any asynchronous solution
(Slony or PITR standby), there is a possibility (although not likely) to
lose *committed* transactions.

If you do need synchronous replication, consider using two-phase commit
to prepare transactions on several machines before committing them. This
ensures that the data will be on multiple machines before committing to
any of them.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Terry Lee Tucker 2006-09-21 17:00:14 Re: After Trigger
Previous Message Bob Pawley 2006-09-21 16:44:40 After Trigger