| From: | "Merrall, Graeme" <gmerrall(at)team(dot)aol7(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication options |
| Date: | 2004-02-20 04:40:34 |
| Message-ID: | B7AD8B4B4A337741B62E633B4827ADD95C23ED@svrexc02.aolau.ops.au.office.aol.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
The only negative issue is replication. I have checked several
Postgres Replication options and unsure which way to go. Can anyone
recommend a replication option that meets the following:
* Does not use triggers. Usually slow, and one action that
modifies several records, can trigger many actions on slaves/peers.
* Does use WAL, or other log, so that SQL DDL/DML is
copied to slave/peer, rather than the result of the DDL/DML.
* Must provide master-master and master-slave replication
* Simple to configure and maintain
Is there any comparative analysis of the different pgsql
replication systems out there? SO far I can think of erserver (free +
payware), mammoth, dbbalancer, pgreplication. Have I missed any?
If such a thing doesn't exist I could cobble few servers
together and have a crack.
Cheers,
Graeme
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-02-20 09:37:17 | Re: Slow queries in PL/PGSQL function |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-02-20 03:28:16 | Re: Inherited tables and column references |