On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dfontaine@hi-media.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, William Temperley wrote:
>> > I could potentially run a database in each of these countries and
>> > provide 100% uptime, obviously raising the issue of version conflicts
>> > that would require hand-merging.
>
> Can you partition data on origin?
> If that's possible, then do it and use a schema per origin to simplify the
> administration thereafter, and "just" replicate some tables from orginin to UK
> and central data from UK to editing countries.
>
Thanks Dimitri, that might be the way forward for us. I guess that's
what's referred to in the Federated database on
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Londiste_Tutorial.
Eventually all data will need to find it's way into the main schema,
however. Once the multi-origin tables are replicated back to the UK
they could then be merged into this under supervision, though I'm not
sure what would happen to them once they were merged - I guess this
gives a multi-master situation.
>> Le Wednesday 15 April 2009, Greg Smith a écrit :
>> It sounds like you want an asynchronous master-slave database architecture
>> where the slaves can also send changes back to the master, but didn't know
>> that's what you should be looking for.
>>
That is what I was looking for, thanks Greg.
>
> If you're afraid about their complexity, try londiste and enjoy :)
> --
> dim
>
Londiste seems to be a consensus. It looks good - modular,
configurable and it's Python! Cool.
Thanks again,
Will
