Re: peer-to-peer replication with Postgres

From: Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>
To: Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: peer-to-peer replication with Postgres
Date: 2010-05-10 15:20:28
Message-ID: AANLkTimyMU3b9oNDub18l4WYDsDrTU2_y4xEER7oZag8@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com> wrote:
> What's the best way to do this?  Looks like something like pgPool
> might be what I want, but I haven't looked into it deeply yet.

I don't think your requirement and postgres are consistent with each
other. Unless your data volume is *so* tiny that copying it takes
just a few seconds, this concept just won't work. Besides the fact
that I don't think there is a master-master solution that does not
impose a lot of overhead and will deal gracefully with nodes
disappearing and appearing arbitrarily.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-05-10 16:01:22 Re: Documentation availability as a single page of text
Previous Message Jonathan Vanasco 2010-05-10 15:02:49 Re: question about unique indexes