Re: do I need replication or something else?

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when caleb(at)vetstar(dot)com (Caleb Simonyi-Gindele) would write:
> John Burger wrote:
>>>> If it were me, and someone proposed a model where two-way
>>>> replication was needed, I would tell them to rethink their model.
>>>> It's broken.
>>>
>>> I would respectfully disagree that the requirement for two-way
>>> replication indicates a broken design.
>>
>>
>> I agree with your disagreement. This design is present in lots of
>> non-RDB systems - CVS, IMAP, PDA syncing, etc. It's clearly more
>> complicated, but can be made to work, and has been many times. I
>> don't see anything about databases in general, or Postgres
>> specifically, that indicates it's a bad idea.
>>
>> - John D. Burger
>> MITRE
>>
> Yes, we use it successfully with the SQL Server edition of our
> product. Does anyone know if this is available with Postgre?

There's no such thing as "Postgre," so there's a paucity of features
available for that...

If you're thinking of PostgreSQL, the only system I am aware of that
offers a similar form of "highly asynchronous multi master with
conflict avoidance/resolution" is PeerDirect's replication system.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/slony.html
"Python's minimalism is attractive to people who like minimalism. It
is decidedly unattractive to people who see Python's minimalism as an
exercise in masochism." -- Peter Hickman, comp.lang.ruby