| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Philip Warner'" <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: postgres 7.2 features. |
| Date: | 2000-07-11 13:21:19 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963367FF0@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> At 11:27 11/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> >
> >> It was mentioned here that triggers could be used for
> async replication,
> >> as well as WAL.
> >
> >Same story. Major inefficency. Replication is tough enough without
> >mucking
> >around with triggers. Once the trigger executes you've got to go and
> >store
> >the data in the database again anyway. Then figure out when to delete
> >it.
> >
>
> The WAL *should* be the most efficient technique for
> replication (this said
> without actually having seen it ;-}).
That depends on how much you need replicated. If you replicate all or most
tables WAL will be very good, if you only need a few tables it wont.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-07-11 13:23:18 | Re: postgres 7.2 features. |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-07-11 13:20:28 | Re: Storage Manager (was postgres 7.2 features.) |