Re: PG-MQ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Markus Schiltknecht
Subject Re: PG-MQ?
Date
Msg-id 46790376.2050206@bluegap.ch
Whole thread Raw
In response to PG-MQ?  (Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Chris,

Chris Browne wrote:
> I'm seeing some applications where it appears that there would be
> value in introducing asynchronous messaging, ala "message queueing."
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_queue>

ISTM that 'message queue' is a way too general term. There are hundreds 
of different queues at different levels on a standard server. So I'm 
somewhat unsure about what problem you want to solve.

> c) There are lesser names, like isectd <http://isectd.sf.net> and the
> (infamous?) Spread Toolkit which both implement memory-based messaging
> systems.

If a GCS is about what you're looking for, then you also might want to 
consider these: ensemble, appia or jGroups. There's a Java layer called 
jGCS, which supports even more, similar systems.

Another commonly used term is 'reliable multicast', which guarantees 
that messages are delivered to a group of recipients. These algorithms 
often are the basis for a GCS.

> My bias would be to have something that can basically run as a thin
> set of stored procedures atop PostgreSQL :-).  It would be trivial to
> extend that to support SOAP/XML-RPC, if desired.

Hm.. in Postgres-R I currently have (partial) support for ensemble and 
spread. Exporting that interface via stored procedures could be done, 
but you would probably need a manager process, as you certainly want 
your connections to persist across transactions (or not?).

Together with that process, we already have half of what Postgres-R is: 
an additional process which connects to the GCS. Thus I'm questioning, 
if there's value for exporting the interface. Can you think of other use 
cases than database replication? Why do you want to do that via the 
database, then, and not directly with the GCS?

> It would be nice to achieve 'higher availability' by having queues
> where you might replicate the contents (probably using the MQ system
> itself ;-)) to other servers.

Uhm.. sorry, but I fail to see the big news here. Which replication 
solution does *not* work that way?

Regards

Markus



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jeroen T. Vermeulen"
Date:
Subject: Re: PG-MQ?
Next
From: "Marko Kreen"
Date:
Subject: Re: PG-MQ?