| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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.... |