Thread: What about SkyTools?

Hello.

Have anybody used SkyTools in production environment?
What's the impression? In practice - is it now more preferrable than Slony or not yet?

On Wednesday 11 April 2007 12:08, Dmitry Koterov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Have anybody used SkyTools in production environment?
> What's the impression? In practice - is it now more preferrable than Slony
> or not yet?

Well, skype using them in production...   I think the general consensus of the
postgresql community is that slony is still the preferred choice, but on
number of deployments and general community knowledge, assuming you need
master/slave style replication.  Everything else is still considered fairly
green technology, though that's no reason not to test it in your environment.
IMHO YMMV

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

I will test them intensively in coming weeks and report the results. I
wrote an overview of the Skype PostgreSQL projects in Russian (will be
published this week), so there will be more details available soon.

In my opinion, SkyTools are worth testing, they look more interesting
than Slony in some aspects.


On 4/11/07, Dmitry Koterov <dmitry@koterov.ru> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Have anybody used SkyTools in production environment?
> What's the impression? In practice - is it now more preferrable than Slony
> or not yet?
>

Still looking for a possible (more simple) replacement for Slony in the background.

1. Seems SkyTools does not have an utility to spread DDL changes among all the replicas (like slonik does). So, if I want to ALTER TABLE, I have to run this command manually on each node?

2. The architecture of the system is not clear enough. What daemon should run in what machine? Seems we must have one PgQ daemon on each machine (master and all slaves), but should we have a londiste daemon on each machine too or not? (If yes, we have to care about londiste configs synchronization on all replicas, which is not very handy.)

Seems SkyTools developed for static schemas only, without an ability to modify the schema.
Am I wrong?