Re: replication choices

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/
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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