From: | William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql replication |
Date: | 2005-08-27 13:27:43 |
Message-ID: | deppoc$11n7$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Chris Travers wrote:
> 1) Efficiency of network throughput
> 2) Tolerance to attempts at repeat transactions before replication
> (emptying an account multiple times)
> 3) Availability of a transaction.
We ended up having to give up #1. It's possible to have our transactions
routed to multiple servers before it becomes a final transaction. User1
might request a payment on ServerA. User2 then marks the payment as
approved on ServerB. ServerC is authoritative and checks the bank/budget
balances before posting as final. After each of these steps requires
replication of the latest changes to all other servers. (In theory, the
first 2 steps only require replication to the authoritative server but
we do so anyways so all servers can act as backups for each other --
pending transactions still need to be restored in case of total DB failure.)
There's definitely a delay in terms of getting from point A to point Z;
duplicate servers. But there's guaranteed financial integrity, users can
connect to any server the load balancer picks and no server requires any
other server/connection to be up for individual user tranactions to occur.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-27 13:38:39 | Re: POSS. FEATURE REQ: "Dynamic" Views |
Previous Message | sunil arora | 2005-08-27 12:49:54 | Re: postgresql performance degradation over time.... |