From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication status |
Date: | 2002-05-29 01:08:21 |
Message-ID: | 3CF42A05.EB915AB@fourpalms.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
...
> rserver only does single-master, while most people want multi-master.
As you probably know, rserv is not limited to only a single instance of
a single master. Many replication problems can be described as a "single
source" problem (or should be described as such; moving to a fully
distributed database brings a host of other issues). So any problem
which can be decomposed to having single sources of subsets of
information can be handled with this system.
The contrib/rserv code has received no contributions from the community
beyond our original submission, which of course pushes all of the
development and recurring costs back onto PostgreSQL Inc and their
clients. We have been very low-key (imho) in representing this solution
to the developer community, but it should be considered for applications
matching its capabilities. Full transactional integrity across primary
and secondary servers is not easy to come by and not offered by most
other solutions. fwiw we have demonstrated well over 2000 updates per
second flowing through rserv systems.
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-05-29 01:33:49 | Re: Replication status |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-05-29 01:02:08 | Re: WAL FILES |