From: | William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql replication |
Date: | 2005-08-26 23:07:00 |
Message-ID: | deo7ap$kip$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Chris Travers wrote:
> I guess I am thinking along different lines than you. I was thinking
> that the simplest solution would be to have master/slave replication for
> *approved* transactions only and no replication for initial commits
> prior to approval. This makes the assumption that a single transaction
> will be committed on a single server, and that a single transaction will
> not be split over multiple servers. In this way, you can commit a
> pending transaction to any single server, and when it is approved, it
> gets replicated via the master. See below for more.
This works if you don't care that multiple servers commit transactions
that force a budget or bank account to be exceeded.
> Thinking about this.... The big issue is that you only want to
> replicate the deltas, not the entire account. I am still thinking
> master/slave, but something where the deltas are replicated in the
> background or where the user, in checking his account, is actually
> querying the home server. This second issue could be done via dblink or
> DBI-Link and would simply require that a master table linking the
> accounts with home servers be replicated (this should, I think, be
> fairly low-overhead).
Except what you know have is your system fails if any server fail or is
inaccessible.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Travers | 2005-08-27 01:26:22 | Re: Postgresql replication |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-08-26 22:59:41 | Re: About "ERROR: must be *superuser* to COPY to or from a file" |