| From: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Chris Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Brad Nicholson" <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, "Shane Ambler" <pgsql(at)007marketing(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Request for replication advice |
| Date: | 2006-11-13 20:47:29 |
| Message-ID: | 37ed240d0611131247k4df936efob8b464d0032aa615@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/14/06, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:
> direvus(at)gmail(dot)com ("Brendan Jurd") writes:
> > This seems to be getting rather messy. I wonder if I might not be
> > better off just writing AFTER triggers on all the tables I'm
> > interested in, which replicate the query to the slave system with
> > psql. It would probably be relatively labour intensive, and
> > increase the burden of administering the schema, but it would also
> > be a much more direct and simple approach.
>
> There might be some improved elegance in that; it is quite possible
> that Slony-I has more functionality than you need.
I think that's the case.
Well, I believe I have all the information I need on this. Thanks to
everyone who replied, I appreciate your help.
BJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-11-13 20:56:24 | Re: Speed of postgres compared to ms sql, is this |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-11-13 19:34:27 | Re: Speed of postgres compared to ms sql, is this |