From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |
Date: | 2015-09-03 08:33:12 |
Message-ID: | CALLjQTQUvaTT1sFT2yuz3Q2brMeDUmL-zqv8oZKhSg-ekCS0WQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-09-02 19:57, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/01/2015 04:14 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 2015-09-02 00:09, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Not really, the mechanism is different and the behavior is different.
>>> One critical deficiency in using binary syncrep is that you can't do
>>> round-robin redundancy at all; every redundant node has to be an exact
>>> mirror of another node. In a good HA distributed system, you want
>>> multiple shards per node, and you want each shard to be replicated to a
>>> different node, so that in the event of node failure you're not dumping
>>> the full load on one other server.
>>>
>>
>> This assumes that we use binary replication, but we can reasonably use
>> logical replication which can quite easily do filtering of what's
>> replicated where.
>
> Is there a way to do logical synchronous replication? I didn't think
> there was.
>
Yes, the logical replication has similar syncrep properties as the
binary one (feedback works same way).
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2015-09-03 08:49:35 | BRIN INDEX value |
Previous Message | Shulgin, Oleksandr | 2015-09-03 08:00:42 | Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |