From: | Adrian von Bidder <avbidder(at)fortytwo(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostGreSQL Replication |
Date: | 2007-07-10 18:11:43 |
Message-ID: | 200707102011.43774.avbidder@fortytwo.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Saturday 07 July 2007 14.16:56 Gabriele wrote:
> I know this is a delicate topic which must be approached cautiously.
>
> Let's have a server which feed data to multiple slaves, usually using
> direct online connections. Now, we may want to allow those client to
> sync the data to a local replica, work offline and then resync the
> data back to the server. Which is the easiest way to approach this
> problem?
Sounds like something you'd want to handle within the application, not at
the database layer. The application can know much more about how data is
modified and how it can be modified safely so a later merge operation won't
fail, or how merge conflicts (however these are defined) can be safely
handled. The database must assume that a user can modify "anything" during
the offline period, and can't assume anything about what to do on merge
operations.
cheers
-- vbi
--
The days just prior to marriage are like a snappy introduction to a
tedious book.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-10 18:12:47 | Re: vacuumdb: PANIC: corrupted item pointer |
Previous Message | Adrian von Bidder | 2007-07-10 18:09:11 | Re: Hyper-Trading |