Thread: Re: pgsql-general-digest V1 #529
Sir:
I would like to inquire if with PostgreSQL 6.5.3.x I can put the same
database on two or more different Linux server such that each update will
be replicated on all database backends...
Manny C. Cabido
====================================
e-mail:manny@tinago.msuiit.edu.ph
manny@sun.msuiit.edu.ph
=====================================
hi... > I would like to inquire if with PostgreSQL 6.5.3.x I can put the same > database on two or more different Linux server such that each update will > be replicated on all database backends... > this is on the to-do list under "Exotic Features". it seems to be one of the more asked about features that doesn't exist at the moment on the General list. unfortunately, it isn't a trivial project so it won't happen over night... right now, you can jury rig your own system up using network file systems, periodic updates of local filesystems, etc... this is limited in usefulness... true replication does not exist (ala Oracle or MSJet)... yet. -- Aaron J. Seigo Sys Admin
"Aaron J. Seigo" wrote: > > I would like to inquire if with PostgreSQL 6.5.3.x I can put the same > > database on two or more different Linux server such that each update will > > be replicated on all database backends... > > right now, you can jury rig your own system up using network file systems, > periodic updates of local filesystems, etc... this is limited in > usefulness... my favorite hack is to wrap the c/c++ api so you can set up a group of mirror database connections and then calling the wrapped functions will call the original function on each of the mirror database connections. i've really never thought of it as something that should be part of the library, though, since that's pretty easy to implement in the application.
hi... > my favorite hack is to wrap the c/c++ api so you can set up a group of > mirror database connections and then calling the wrapped functions will > call the original function on each of the mirror database connections. > i've really never thought of it as something that should be part of the > library, though, since that's pretty easy to implement in the > application. very cool... but i too agree that this shouldn't necessarily be in the libraries... this needs to be in the back end... otherwise, if you have multiple people performing updates on different replicated servers, how can you guarentee concurancy? how do you manage the differences between read-only and updateable replicants? (this can be done using your wrapper method, but quickly gets clumsy) also, it would make maintaining replication simpler if it were part of the back end process... and not prone to some app that goes around your wrapped lib and defeats the replication scheme altogether... imo, it should be part of the transaction system.... =) -- Aaron J. Seigo Sys Admin
"Aaron J. Seigo" wrote: > this needs to be in the back end... otherwise, if you have multiple people > performing updates on different replicated servers, how can you guarentee > concurancy? how do you manage the differences between read-only and updateable > replicants? (this can be done using your wrapper method, but quickly gets > clumsy) yeah it can get clumsy, but fortunately updates are pretty rare in my case (and usually only performed by one person) so i don't really worry about those issues, but i should. the only safety issue i use is starting a transaction for each connection, perform the action on all of the databases, and then commit the transaction on each. it's not bad unless one of the commits fails and the others don't, then i have to retry the failed ones & hope it works. i don't know how to fix it if i had to give up on one of the transactions for a mirror. again, not perfect, but it works pretty well for me & my simpler cases.