Andrew Hammond wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:38 pm, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) wrote:
>> Rick Gigger <r...@alpinenetworking.com> writes:
>>> I thought that the following todo item just barely missed 8.2:
>>> "Allow a warm standby system to also allow read-only statements [pitr]
>> No, it's a someday-wishlist item; the work involved is not small.
>
> Slony1 has supported log-shipping replication for about a year now. It
> provides similar functionality.
Yes but Slony is much more complicated, has significantly more
administrative overhead, and as far as I can tell is much more likely to
impact my production system than this method would.
Slony is a lot more flexible and powerful but I don't need that. I just
want a backup that is reasonably up to date that I can do queries on and and failover to in case of hardware failure
onmy primary db.
I am going to be looking more closely at Slony now that it seems to be
the best option for this. I am not looking forward to how it will
complicate my life though. (Not saying it is bad, just complicated. At
least more complicated than simple postgres log shipping.
