From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha(at)lklug(dot)pdn(dot)ac(dot)lk> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Peer to peer replication of Postgresql databases |
Date: | 2002-10-11 16:07:00 |
Message-ID: | 87bs61kli3.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
[ pgsql-patches removed from Cc: list ]
Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha(at)lklug(dot)pdn(dot)ac(dot)lk> writes:
> I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I have
> already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner.
Did you look at the research behind Postgres-R, and the pgreplication
stuff?
> - When a frontend process sends a read query, each backend process
> does that from its own data area.
Surely that's not correct -- a SELECT can be handled by *any one*
node, not each and every one, right?
> - There are two types of write queries. Postmasters use seperate
> communication channels for each. One is the sequencial channel which
> carries writes whose order is important, and the non-sequencial
> channel carries write queries whose order is not important.
How do you distinguish between these?
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-10-11 16:36:48 | Re: inline newNode() |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2002-10-11 16:04:31 | move 0 behaviour |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-10-11 16:36:48 | Re: inline newNode() |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-10-11 15:50:02 | Re: .cvsignore file |