Re: Replication Ideas - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Marc G. Fournier
Subject Re: Replication Ideas
Date
Msg-id 20030826025754.V691@ganymede.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Replication Ideas  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Replication Ideas  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Replication Ideas  ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>)
List pgsql-general

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> writes:
> > Yes I have. Postgres-r is not a high-availability solution which is
> > capable of transparent failover,
>
> What makes you say that?  My understanding is it's supposed to survive
> loss of individual servers.

How does it play 'catch up' went a server comes back online?

note that I did go through the 'docs' on how it works, and am/was quite
impressed at what they were doing ... but, if I have a large network, say,
and one group is connecting to ServerA, and another group with ServerB,
what happens when ServerA and ServerB loose network connectivity for any
period of time?  How do they re-sync when the network comes back up again?

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Rudy Koento
Date:
Subject: postgresql not using index even though it's faster
Next
From: "Bupp Phillips"
Date:
Subject: What is the fastest way to get a resultset