| From: | "Jeff Larsen" <jlar310(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Vivek Khera" <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "PgSQL General ML" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: replication in Postgres |
| Date: | 2007-11-26 17:50:08 |
| Message-ID: | d1f9b6f00711260950s3c28d560pc20e01427d60b678@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> > Yes, but I'd like something better than "near real time" as the above
> > page describes. Or maybe someone could clarify that.... Besides,
> > EnterpriseDB does not save me enough money. In my current commercial
> > DB, if a transaction is committed on the master, it is guaranteed to
> > be committed to the secondary. In our business, losing one customer
> > order could lose us the customer for good.
>
> So you want synchronous replication. Search on that term in the
> archives for possible solutions (or lack thereof) in postgres.
>
> If you don't specify your requirements clearly, don't expect useful
> advice ;-)
I'm not looking for advice. My original contribution to this thread
suggested a preferred course of future development. I know what my
options are with the present version, but I see room for improvement.
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-11-26 17:55:09 | Re: replication in Postgres |
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2007-11-26 17:39:42 | Re: replication in Postgres |