From: | Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Request for replication advice |
Date: | 2006-11-10 20:13:58 |
Message-ID: | 1163189638.5789.41.camel@dba5.int.libertyrms.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So, my question for the list is: is Slony + log shipping the direction
> > I should be investigating, or is there something else out that I ought
> > to consider?
>
> Those are two different methods: you'd use one or the other, not both.
Slony has its own log shipping, I think that was what he was referring
to.
> Slony-I is much the more battle-tested of the two at the moment. In
> theory WAL log shipping should be higher performance for heavy-update
> scenarios, but its latency is variable (low update rate = higher
> latency), and not easy to put a bound on pre-8.2.
I'm not entirely sure how battle tested the Slony log shipping stuff
actually is.
--
Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-10 20:16:09 | Re: Request for replication advice |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-10 20:07:50 | Re: Request for replication advice |