From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | jhihn1 <jhihn1(at)umbc(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using RSYNC for replication? |
Date: | 2003-01-28 18:39:43 |
Message-ID: | 22704.1043779183@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
jhihn1 <jhihn1(at)umbc(dot)edu> writes:
> I don't understand what is so hard about doing it this way.
If you want separate installations, make separate installations. Don't
expect multiple databases in a single installation to be implemented
with the same amount of overhead as separate installations would be.
If we did it that way, we'd legitimately get complaints.
> It would make replication so simple and fast.
No it wouldn't; as I've been trying to explain to you, there are a lot
of reasons why rsync'ing a database won't work. Fixing a few of them
doesn't produce a working solution. Nor are we going to contort the
system design to make a fundamentally wrongheaded approach to
replication work. rsync is just not the basis of a workable solution,
because it doesn't and can't know anything about the database state or
the semantics of the different files in the database.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Buttafuoco | 2003-01-28 18:42:26 | Re: Status of tablespaces |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-28 18:31:52 | Re: Status of tablespaces |