From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Jens-Wolfhard Schicke <drahflow(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Transaction-controlled robustness for replication |
Date: | 2008-08-12 16:48:08 |
Message-ID: | 200808121648.m7CGm8g20181@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> > What is the attraction of logical application of the WAL logs?
> > Transmitting to a server with different architecture?
>
> Yes,
>
> * different release
> * different encoding
> * different CPU architecture
> * (with the correct transform) a different DBMS
>
> So logical apply can provide a route for data transfer between
> applications, not just replication for DR or HA.
>
> Physical apply works and will be more performant, but it will always be
> more restrictive. So there are arguments for doing it both ways.
>
> I believe that we can and should offer both options to provide customer
> choice. Ideally, it would be nice to be able to switch between the two
> without significant reconfiguration, but that's definitely not for this
> release.
I assume you are focusing on physical first, becuase that is easiest.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-08-12 16:54:41 | Re: Transaction-controlled robustness for replication |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-08-12 16:41:08 | Re: Plugin system like Firefox |