On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:41:10PM -0700, Ed L. wrote:
> I also share the objectives of reliability/redundancy. My concern
> with syncronous solutions in general is recoverability when one of
> two masters fails. Admittedly at the price of intervals of data
> inconsistency between master and slave, async solutions can just pop
> back online and "catch-up", thus the appeal. In reading a little
It seems to me that this answer is only true if you can tolerate loss
or delay of transactions. That is, if the order of transactions
matters, you really can't just make your former slave a master
without knowing that the failed master has sent everything to the
slave.
If order matters, then the opposite is true: because you know that
any master has all the data, you can just accept it when one master
goes away. Of course, that requires a good program for adding new
replicated systems, which I guess is what Postgres-R is going to do.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
