From: | "Aly S(dot)P Dharshi" <aly(dot)dharshi(at)telus(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: On "multi-master" |
Date: | 2005-10-14 16:19:58 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0510141017160.16452@edtnas67.telus.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Please allow me to wad into this discussion giving it a different view.
LDAP is a form of a database, it has Multi-Master afaik it runs somewhat
decently for two masters, can't we use a similar setup as say Fedora
Directory Server or OpenLDAP's replication strategy and with some modification/improvement use
it to help PostgreSQL do Multi-Master/Replication ?
Am I missing the point ?
Cheers,
Aly.
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 17:48, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 10:53:51AM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
>> > > Now, what about PgPool as a multimaster sync replication solution? Sure
>> > > it is statement level.... But is there any reason why you cannot have
>> > > multiple PgPool instances running against a number of DB servers?
>> >
>> > Well, to begin with, you have a serious race condition:
>> >
>> > pgpool begins T1 on M1 and M2.
>> > Someone logs into M2 and does some work in T2.
>> > M1 completes the work of T1.
>> > M2 completes the work of T2.
>> > pgpool issues COMMIT.
>> > M1 replies with the COMMIT.
>> > M2 detects a deadlock when T2 tries to COMMIT.
>> >
>> > Now what? There's nothing to prevent this in the system, as near as
>> > I can see, so it's just not bullet proof enough for the cases where
>> > people really, really need only five minutes of down time a year. If
>> > you _really_ needed that, you'd be willing (and able) to pay the
>> > costs. Of course, we can do what we can to make those costs go down.
>> > :-> But they're not that low yet.
>>
>> Why pgpool should bother? pgpool supposes every transaction should go
>> through pgpool. Your example sounds like someone logs into M2 and tries
>> to shut down it.
>
>I had the same thought. Every time I've set up a system with pgpool,
>I've always configured the db servers on an odd port, cut it off with a
>firewall to anything but the pgpool machine and set it to only answer to
>pgpool's IP and only let users access the system through pgpool.
>
>USers accessing machines behind the scenes is a VERY bad idea. It's not
>a pgpool bug, is a user bug. :)
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
Aly S.P Dharshi
aly(dot)dharshi(at)telus(dot)net
"A good speech is like a good dress
that's short enough to be interesting
and long enough to cover the subject"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Raymond O'Donnell | 2005-10-14 16:29:52 | Supplying password to pg_dump |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-10-14 16:16:36 | Re: On "multi-master" |