Re: peer-to-peer replication with Postgres - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Vick Khera
Subject Re: peer-to-peer replication with Postgres
Date
Msg-id AANLkTimyMU3b9oNDub18l4WYDsDrTU2_y4xEER7oZag8@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to peer-to-peer replication with Postgres  (Mike Christensen <mike@kitchenpc.com>)
Responses Re: peer-to-peer replication with Postgres  (Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>)
List pgsql-general
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Mike Christensen <mike@kitchenpc.com> wrote:
> What's the best way to do this?  Looks like something like pgPool
> might be what I want, but I haven't looked into it deeply yet.

I don't think your requirement and postgres are consistent with each
other.    Unless your data volume is *so* tiny that copying it takes
just a few seconds, this concept just won't work.  Besides the fact
that I don't think there is a master-master solution that does not
impose a lot of overhead and will deal gracefully with nodes
disappearing and appearing arbitrarily.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Jonathan Vanasco
Date:
Subject: Re: question about unique indexes
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Documentation availability as a single page of text