On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Adrian Klaver
<adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
> On 09/12/2016 12:46 PM, Lee Hachadoorian wrote:
>>
>> There are a wide variety of Postgres replication solutions, and I
>> would like advice on which one would be appropriate to my use case.
>>
>> * Small (~half dozen) distributed workforce using a file sharing
>> service, but without access to direct network connection over the
>> internet
>> * Database is updated infrequently, when new government agency data
>> releases replace old data
>> * Because database is updated infrequently, workforce can come
>> together for LAN-based replication as needed
>> * Entire database is on the order of a few GB
>>
>> Given this, I am considering the super lowtech "replication" solution
>> of updating "master" and doing a full database drop and restore on the
>> "slaves". But I would like to know which of the other (real)
>> replication solutions might work for this use case.
>
>
> If I follow correctly the layout is?:
>
> Main database <--- Govt. data
> |
> |
> \ /
>
> File share
> |
> |
> \ /
>
> DB DB DB DB DB DB
>
> User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4 User 5 User 6
>
>
>
> For your simple scenario you might want to look at:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/app-pgbasebackup.html
>
That diagram is what I am proposing.
pg_basebackup looks interesting. My initial impression is that the
main gain would be for a multiple database cluster. Are there other
advantages to using this in preference to a full DB dump and restore
if all of our data will be in a single database?
Best,
--Lee
