| From: | Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: peer-to-peer replication with Postgres |
| Date: | 2010-05-11 01:21:27 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimniY2jEYBNAXtTbxvHF5iIHeVLXcz6X1dJwvMf@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Man that sounds awesome. I need that now. So does that mean you'd
have one beefy SQL server for all the updates and everything writes to
that, and then you'd have a bunch of read-only servers and new data
trickles into them from the master continuously?
Mike
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'll stick with the standard
>> approach of having a single SQL server and several web frontends and
>> employ a caching mechanism such as memcache as well. Thanks!
>
> And with 9.0 it will be pretty easy to setup hot read PITR slaves so
> you can build a pretty simple failover system.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-05-11 01:23:51 | Re: peer-to-peer replication with Postgres |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-05-11 01:12:00 | Re: Archiver not picking up changes to archive_command |