Fujii Masao wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> It is however async replication so you can loose data commited on the
>> master but not yet replicated to the slaves in case you loose the master
>> completely.
>
> Yes, here is an insufficient point of Slony-I, i think.
> Most systems will not permit the committed data to be lost, so use is
> limited.
Wanna bet?
It is very, very common to have asynchronous replication. I would say
the need for synchronous is far more limited (although greater desired).
Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>>> IMO, log-based replication is needed also for PostgreSQL just like
>>> MySQL.
>
> Well, I had misunderstood MySQL. Its replication is also asynchronous.
>
> regards;
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL
solutionssince 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
