On Nov 26, 2007 1:02 PM, Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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?
Ummm, if one server falls behind, and the other keeps going, that, by
definition, is not synchronous.
In a synchronous system, you either wait for the other system to catch
up, or declare it dead to the world and keep going without it.
I do like the recommendation of setting up a pair of synch masters and
having one feed a slony slave for big nasty queries.
> 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?
ayup. The most important word you can learn to use when talking about
replication and clustering is TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as
a free lunch.
> Just for the record I'm a programmer, not a database person really,
> so I only know the basics.
Stick around, you'll learn plenty here. Admittedly a little bluntly
at times. :)
