AW: AW: AW: Postgres Replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas SB
Subject AW: AW: AW: Postgres Replication
Date
Msg-id 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368322@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: AW: AW: AW: Postgres Replication  (Darren Johnson <djohnson@greatbridge.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> Well as I read back the thread I see 2 different approaches to
> replication:
> 
> 1: tight integrated replication. 
> pro:
> - bi-directional (or multidirectional): updates are possible everywhere
> - A cluster of servers allways has the same state. 
> - it does not matter to which server you connect
> con:
> - network between servers will be a bottleneck, especially if it is a
> WAN connection
> - only full replication possible

I do not understand that point, if it is trigger based, you 
have all the flexibility you need. (only some tables, only some rows,
different rows to different targets ....), 
(or do you mean not all targets, that could also be achieved with triggers)

> - what happens if one server is down? (or the network between) are
> commits still possible

No, updates are not possible if one target is not reachable, 
that would not be synchronous and would again need business rules
to resolve conflicts.

Allowing updates when a target is not reachable would require admin 
intervention.

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: mlw
Date:
Subject: Indexing on a separate volume
Next
From: Gavin Sherry
Date:
Subject: Re: Indexing on a separate volume