From: | Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: replication choices |
Date: | 2007-02-06 19:50:55 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0702061146000.28404@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Yeah, log shipping looks like it solves the network problem, except for
the part about how how I must replicate to a normal slony node before I
can get logs to ship. We don't have the hardware to have a secondary
database at every site. :(
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:17:52PM -0800, Ben wrote:
>> familiar with Slony, and from what I understand, using Slony with bad
>> networks leads to bad problems. I'm also not sure that Slony supports
>> replicating from multiple sources to the same postgres install, even if
>> each replication process is writing to a different schema.
>
> Yes, you can have multiple origins into the same database, without a
> problem. I'd be worried for sure about the network unreliability,
> though. You might, however, be able to do this usefully using the
> log shipping features of Slony.
>
> I would _not_ worry about the outbound replication from the centre,
> assuming that the changes are infrequent.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
> In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
> garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
> --Brad Holland
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-06 19:53:03 | Re: [HACKERS] getting status transaction error |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-02-06 19:50:36 | Re: getting status transaction error |