| From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <fujii(dot)masao(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication |
| Date: | 2006-08-21 16:04:14 |
| Message-ID: | 44E9D97E.2030703@kaltenbrunner.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> It is however async replication so you can loose data commited on the
>> master but not yet replicated to the slaves in case you loose the master
>> completely.
>
> Yes, here is an insufficient point of Slony-I, i think.
> Most systems will not permit the committed data to be lost, so use is
> limited.
not sure i agree with "most systems" here - a _LOT_ of use cases
actually want async (and note that slony1 can do a controlled failover
without any transactions lost).
Nevertheless there are also points for having sync-replication but
calling slony1 "insufficient" in that regard is a bit much since it is
actually designed to be async and does quite a good job with that.
Stefan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-21 16:18:33 | Re: [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level |
| Previous Message | mark | 2006-08-21 15:48:01 | Re: PostgreSQL on 64 bit Linux |