It it possible to get a system that does syncronous replication and
also allows slaves to catch up if they're down for a period of time
like you can with asyncronous?
I'm just interested.
Of course a grid or a clustwer is better to makesure all servers are
in sync, but there's performance issues with the 2 phase commit isn't
there?
Just for the record I'm a programmer, not a database person really,
so I only know the basics.
--- Jeff Larsen <jlar310@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Glyn Astill wrote:
> > >> Thanks everyone for your replies. EnterpriseDB looks like the
> way to
> > >> go if we want good replication.
> > >
> > > Sorry, this makes no sense to me -- EnterpriseDB has no
> replication
> > > solution that I know of.
> >
> > Yeah, there is:
> >
> > http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/enterprisedb_replication.do
>
> Yes, but I'd like something better than "near real time" as the
> above
> page describes. Or maybe someone could clarify that.... Besides,
> EnterpriseDB does not save me enough money. In my current
> commercial
> DB, if a transaction is committed on the master, it is guaranteed
> to
> be committed to the secondary. In our business, losing one customer
> order could lose us the customer for good.
>
> Jeff
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/
>
Glyn Astill
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail now has unlimited storage, which means you can have spam control and more space for those important
e-mails.
http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
