From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nick Babadzhanian <nb(at)cobra(dot)ru> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replication with non-read-only standby. |
Date: | 2016-06-30 14:03:44 |
Message-ID: | CAOR=d=1v6=1fgBs_1z_ymx4vtUuRuhAxWg3vOcgY-XXiczJ8bg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Nick Babadzhanian <nb(at)cobra(dot)ru> wrote:
> Setup:
> 2 PostgreSQL servers are geographically spread. The first one is used for an application that gathers data. It is connected to the second database that is used to process the said data. Connection is not very stable nor is it fast, so using Bidirectional replication is not an option. It is OK if data is shipped in batches rather than streamed.
>
> Question:
> Is there a way to make the standby server non-read-only, so that it can keep getting updates (mostly inserts) from the 'master', but users are able to edit the data stored on 'slave'? Is there some alternative solution to this?
I'd probably solve this with slony.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2016-06-30 14:16:49 | Re: Stored procedure version control |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-06-30 13:30:33 | Re: How safe is pg_basebackup + continuous archiving? |