Re: Postgresql replication

Welty, Richard wrote:
> Jeff Davis writes:
>
>
>>The disadvantages:
>
>
> one more: if you actually have m tables and n servers, you have
> m x n tables in reality, which is pretty miserable scaling behavior.
> i should think that rules, triggers, and embedded procedures would
> explode in complexity rather rapidly.
>
> i know i wouldn't want to administer one of these if there were a lot
> of sites.
>

True, but in practice n will usually be fairly reasonable. In
particular, his setup sounded like it would be only a few.

Also, you're really talking about scalability of administration. I don't
think performance will be significantly impacted.

>
>>I hope this is helpful. Let me know if there's some reason my plan won't
>>work.
>
>
> look at the solution in pgreplicator. site ids are embedded in the
> id columns in the tables, so there only m tables, and a bit less insanity.
>

That doesn't work with Slony-I unfortunately. I don't know much about
pgreplicator, but if it does something similar to what I'm talking
about, maybe it's a good thing to look into.

Regards,
Jeff Davis