| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl, jonathan(at)cnds(dot)jhu(dot)edu, al(at)alsutton(dot)com, darren(at)up(dot)hrcoxmail(dot)com, JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com, shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Update on replication |
| Date: | 2002-12-18 01:12:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20021218.101238.74756038.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > What about asynchronous (triggered?) replication? Is something like
> > > rserv or dbmirror going to be moved to main?
> >
> > From what I've been able to tell *so far*, Postgres-R is going to preclude
> > the ability for either to work ... Vadim is currently reviewing the code,
> > and based on his assessment of whether or not that is the case, I'm going
> > to be pushing for postgres-r to be its own project/fork of PostgreSQL,
> > like RedHat Database ...
>
> How is Postgres-R going to prevent async replication from also being
> adopted in CVS?
As far as I know, all trigger based async replication solutions have a
limitation. They do not handle high load (and probably cannot handle
large objects. am I correct?). I think we should move to other async
replication soltions, such as PostgreSQL-R or (not yet existing)
transaction log based replications.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2002-12-18 01:13:06 | Re: Update on replication |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-12-18 00:30:40 | Re: Update on replication |