Re: RServ patch to support multiple slaves (sorta)

OK, I have backed out this patch. Hopefully we can get a more complete
patch sometime.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 June 2003 08:42 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:11:35AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > > Patch applied. Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> > > > >> Attached is a patch that provides *VERY* limited support for
> > > > >> multiple slave servers. I haven't tested it very well, so use at
> > > > >> your own risk (and I recommend against using it in production).
> > > >
> > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >
> > > > It sounded to me like that patch was intended for comment, not for
> > > > application.
>
> Yes, this was my original intent. If anyone else thought it was worthy enough
> to go into CVS, then great, but mainly I wanted a few more pairs of eyes to
> look it over.
>
> > > He said it wasn't all he wanted to do with the code, but that it did
> > > work. With so few rserv patches, it seems like something we should get
> > > in, but maybe not? Other comments? I am not sure myself.
> >
> > I don't remember the patch right now, but it seemed to me the patch
> > didn't have anything to do with multiple slaves anyway... When was it
> > posted? I can't find it in the archives... (it'd be nice to have the
> > date of the original message in the attribution when you quote other
> > people, that way it's much easier to find it in the archives)
>
> All my patch does is allow you to limit what tables you replicate from a
> slave. In this way, SlaveA can replicate tables X, Y and Z, while SlaveB can
> replicate tables M, N and O.
>
> I have a single master database, and different authentication databases at key
> areas of my infrastructure (mail authentication, web server configuration,
> etc). I was getting errors when trying to replicate SlaveA just after adding
> SlaveB, because the necessary tables didn't exist on SlaveA.
>
> > Some 2 years ago I wrote a patch for multiple slaves and it worked
> > reasonably well... I wasn't too much in the Postgres world those days so
> > I didn't submit it. If I can get to my CVS archive I'll extract it and
> > post for review.
>
> That'd be great. My patch, like I said in my original post (06/19/2003
> 07:36pm PST), is just a beginning, and I'm not even 100% sure it'll work
> reliably. Although I'm an experienced Perl programmer, I'm not as familar
> with PostgreSQL's internals as I'd like to be (e.g. I tread lightly when it
> comes to the pg_* tables).
>
> If someone else has better support, I'd much rather a) take the code and run,
> and b) not have to do the same myself since I have too many items on my task
> list as it is.
>
> --
> Michael A Nachbaur <mike(at)nachbaur(dot)com>
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073