From: | "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Timur Luchkin" <timur(dot)luchkin(at)ctxm(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Different host aliases in SLONY configuration table |
Date: | 2008-02-14 16:15:26 |
Message-ID: | d6d6637f0802140815w69ff65edp66e5bbcdc02918be@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Timur Luchkin <timur(dot)luchkin(at)ctxm(dot)com> wrote:
> I have a question regarding SLONY replication. In short, the question is:
> Can I have different values on every node in the "sl_path" table in column
> "pa_conninfo"?
>
> For example, one node has IP addresses in "pa_conninfo", but other has
> aliases from /etc/hosts?
This is more generally a matter for the Slony-I discussion list, but I
can touch on the answer here...
Yes, you may use varying kinds of values for hostnames for
"sl_path.pa_conninfo".
I'd expect that to be unwise from the perspective that it means you
need to be looking at network configuration in multiple ways, which I
would expect to lead to a risk of confusion.
If you're clear on everything, and are careful not to get confused,
there's no problem. I know I'd be likely to get confused when mixing
name and IP addresses.
Further, if your network is configured in such a way that different
hosts see each other differently, that seems likely to have a huge
risk of confusion. For instance, I could see this happening if two
nodes have DNS configured, and one doesn't. I rather dislike that
network configuration! :-)
--
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results." -- assortedly attributed to Albert
Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benjamin Arai | 2008-02-14 16:25:31 | PostgreSQLDirect versus Npgsql |
Previous Message | Erik Jones | 2008-02-14 16:14:51 | Re: dynamic crosstab |