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.
not sure i agree with "most systems" here - a _LOT_ of use cases
actually want async (and note that slony1 can do a controlled failover
without any transactions lost).
Nevertheless there are also points for having sync-replication but
calling slony1 "insufficient" in that regard is a bit much since it is
actually designed to be async and does quite a good job with that.
Stefan
