Re: Replicating databases

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Replicating databases
Date: 2005-11-03 21:56:43
Message-ID: 20051103215643.GE16854@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:16:01AM -0800, codeWarrior wrote:
> It doesnt sound to me like replication is the right answer to this
> problem... You are setting yourself up to try and defeat one of the major
> purposes of a database in a client-server system -- namely -- centralized
> storage.

While I have a certain amount of sympathy for this view, it's often
the case that centralised storage isn't quite what you want. After
all, if always-fast is more important than always-right, we prefer
caches and such like. DNS is the obvious example there. And if
always-works is more important than always-fast or always-right, then
you have a very powerful incentive to keep things local.

That said, this case does sort of sound like money might be better
spent on improved communications that a humungous amount of work to
Rube up a Goldberg for getting all the data in every store. But
maybe we don't have the whole picture: maybe communications links
aren't stable in some of these stores, and can't be made so
economically.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-11-03 22:04:49 Re: Replicating databases
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2005-11-03 21:51:17 Re: Replicating databases