| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |