On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 09:03:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Can you explain why logical replication is better than binary
> > replication for this use-case?
>
> Uh, well, for the same reasons it is better in many other cases.
> Particularly, you probably don't want to replicate all the data on
> machine A to machine B, just some of it.
>
> Typically, sharding solutions store multiple copies of each piece of
> data. So let's say you have 4 machines. You divide the data into 12
> chunks. Each machine is the write-master for 2 of those chunks, but
> has secondary copies of 3 others. So maybe things start out like
> this:
>
> machine #1: master for chunks 1, 2, 3; also has copies of chunks 4, 7, 10
> machine #2: master for chunks 4, 5, 6; also has copies of chunks 1, 8, 11
> machine #3: master for chunks 7, 8, 9; also has copies of chunks 2, 5, 12
> machine #4: master for chunks 10, 11, 12; also has copies of chunks 3, 6, 9
>
> If machine #1 is run over by a rabid triceratops, you can make machine
> #2 the master for chunk 1, machine #3 the master for chunk 2, and
> machine #4 the master for chunk 3. The write load therefore remains
> evenly divided. If you can only copy entire machines, you can't
> achieve that in this situation.
I see the advantage of this now. My original idea is that each shard
would have its own standby for disaster recovery, but your approach
above, which I know is typical, allows the shards to back up each other.
You could say shard 2 is the backup for shard 1, but then if shard one
goes bad, the entire workload of shard 1 goes to shard 2. With the
above approach, the load of shard 1 is shared by all the shards.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
