From: | "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Madison Kelly" <linux(at)alteeve(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: High-availability |
Date: | 2007-06-02 23:16:23 |
Message-ID: | 88daf38c0706021616qf9d2017u79481513822981d6@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 6/3/07, Madison Kelly <linux(at)alteeve(dot)com> wrote:
> > Slony is indeed intended for near-real-time replication; it's
> > asynchronous, so slaves always lag behind the master. The amount of
> > discrepancy depends on a bunch of factors -- individual node
> > performance, network performance, and system load.
>
> That was *exactly* the kind of link I was trying to find.
You're welcome.
As a side-note, I sat up pgpool-II today, and was pleasantly surprised
about how easy it all was; within two minutes I had two databases in
perfect sync on my laptop. It has limitations (such as in its handling
of sequences), but compared to Slony it's like a breath of fresh
mountain air.
Pgpool-II also supports table partitioning, where you define each
database to have a subset of the data. Pgpool-II then intercepts every
SQL statement and routes it to the correct server. It doesn't work
with referential integrity, I think, which is a major limitation, but
it's the nature of the beast.
Alexander.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Staubo | 2007-06-02 23:18:51 | Re: High-availability |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2007-06-02 22:51:15 | Re: Transactional DDL |