From: | Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BDR global sequences in two machine failover |
Date: | 2015-09-08 12:59:19 |
Message-ID: | CALXCt0oAE7nJ8KGrF9=3Mf8yBAw_iwnZgx1W0fVUBAYtKS5VFw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks again and more Craig
-giovanni
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7 September 2015 at 20:56, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > If I do not use global sequences, and I use uuid as primary keys, would
> BDR
> > be a correct choice?
>
> For something like a VoIP service where eventual consistency is
> usually OK and geographic redundancy with latency tolerance and
> partition tolerance is needed, yes, it could make a lot of sense.
>
> You could use UUID keys or use normal sequences with different offsets
> on the nodes. UUID will probably be easier to manage.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
Cell : +39-347-2665618
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melvin Davidson | 2015-09-08 13:44:01 | Re: view |
Previous Message | Ray Stell | 2015-09-08 12:34:59 | Re: bdr admin role |