Re: Having two simultaneous and similar database

From: Sairam Krishnamurthy <kmsram420(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah(dot)rajesh(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Having two simultaneous and similar database
Date: 2010-10-05 07:52:00
Message-ID: AANLkTinsM6C10nVWnVs2C+rGX3zs=U3RdQn7D9EB_nns@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Scott, Thanks to answering the question. Thats exactly the reason.

Also any operation on the tables is going to be huge. LIke 10s of
thousands of rows inserted of deleted. This basically locks the table
and that y we wanted to update a database and sync it with the
production database when no one will be using the system.

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Rajesh Kumar Mallah
> <mallah(dot)rajesh(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Dear Sai,
>>
>> Why do you want to update at nite only. You can setup streaming replication
>> with pgsql9.0 and
>> have it updated almost instantly.
>
> They could have something where they need a stable unchanging version
> for testing, or they're load testing and need to write to the salve,
> etc.
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2010-10-05 08:02:47 Re: queriing the version of libpq
Previous Message Sairam Krishnamurthy 2010-10-05 07:49:01 Re: Having two simultaneous and similar database