On 09/27/10 11:18 PM, novnovice wrote:
> That's a surprising response. But it makes sense, at least as one
> perspective. I have written light duty sync systems but figured that there
> would be some battle tested postgresql solution that was more robust than I
> could cobble together. As in, if I invest 40 hours learning replication
> system X, I'd be further along than if I'd invested the same 40 hours
> writing my own system from scratch. It's not simple stuff. It would still be
> good to eval whatever canned solutions are out there. I have googled this
> topic of course; among the candidates none seemed to be a great match up
> with what I hoped to find.
the general case of asynchronous offline replication fundamentally
breaks one of the tenets of SQL, that COMMIT only returns true if the
data is validly and reliably committed to the "Truth".
multimaster databases create a lot of problems for which there are no
good answers that don't compromise data integrity. delaying the
synchronization by indeterminate intervals via offline updatable
replicas aggravates this enormously
btw, I don't speak for the 'postgresql community', i'm just s database
user who happens to be on this list.
