Thread: replication only
i read about the replication possibilities with postgresql. If i just need some replication ( without failover stuff ) to 1 standby server, what would be the best option to go with. Slony i presume, although schema chanages are not propagated. thanks jef peeraer
On 05/08/2008 08:21, Jef Peeraer wrote: > would be the best option to go with. Slony i presume, although schema > chanages are not propagated. Schema changes *are* propagated in Slony, using the EXECUTE SCRIPT statement: http://www.slony.info/documentation/stmtddlscript.html Ray. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland rod@iol.ie Galway Cathedral Recitals: http://www.galwaycathedral.org/recitals ------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Jef Peeraer <jef.peeraer@telenet.be>: > > i read about the replication possibilities with postgresql. If i just need > some replication ( without failover stuff ) to 1 standby server, what > would be the best option to go with. Your description of you requirements is very lacking, so much so that any attempt at suggesting a "best" option would be pointless. Provide some more information on your requirements and people will be able to answer intelligently. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Jef Peeraer <jef.peeraer@telenet.be>: > > > > i read about the replication possibilities with postgresql. If i just need > > some replication ( without failover stuff ) to 1 standby server, what > > would be the best option to go with. > > Your description of you requirements is very lacking, so much so that > any attempt at suggesting a "best" option would be pointless. > > Provide some more information on your requirements and people will be > able to answer intelligently. my apology, i tried to be brief. i've got a main database, where all transactions end up. Daily we make a backup (pg_dumpall) and restore the first database in a sort of backup database. This backup database is mainly used to do reporting. To automate this process for the backup database and to minimize the out-of-sync state, i should like to use replication. The second backup database is only used as read-only, except for some third party software that writes to 1 table. jef peeraer > > -- > Bill Moran > Collaborative Fusion Inc. > http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ > > wmoran@collaborativefusion.com > Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > >
In response to Jef Peeraer <jef.peeraer@telenet.be>: > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Bill Moran wrote: > > > In response to Jef Peeraer <jef.peeraer@telenet.be>: > > > > > > i read about the replication possibilities with postgresql. If i just need > > > some replication ( without failover stuff ) to 1 standby server, what > > > would be the best option to go with. > > > > Your description of you requirements is very lacking, so much so that > > any attempt at suggesting a "best" option would be pointless. > > > > Provide some more information on your requirements and people will be > > able to answer intelligently. > my apology, i tried to be brief. > i've got a main database, where all transactions end up. Daily we make a > backup (pg_dumpall) and restore the first database in a sort of backup > database. This backup database is mainly used to do reporting. > To automate this process for the backup database and to minimize the > out-of-sync state, i should like to use replication. > The second backup database is only used as read-only, > except for some third party software that writes to 1 table. You'd probably be best with Slony, just don't replicate that 1 table that you'll need to write to. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023
On Tue, August 5, 2008 9:21 am, Jef Peeraer wrote: > > i read about the replication possibilities with postgresql. If i just need > some replication ( without failover stuff ) to 1 standby server, what > would be the best option to go with. Slony i presume, although schema > chanages are not propagated. Skytools (http://pgfoundry.org/projects/skytools/) has a considerably lower learning curve compared to Slony. Nothing wrong with Slony, but recovering from replication problems with skytools is far easier, and it's just much simpler to use -- not as flexible and as powerful as Slony, but if all you need to do is replicate some tables with minimum fuss and without having to learn a new language, then Skytools (based on my personal experience with a cluster and Slony versus Skytools) is my recommendation. Regards Henry
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> wrote: > In response to Jef Peeraer <jef.peeraer@telenet.be>: > > You'd probably be best with Slony, just don't replicate that 1 table > that you'll need to write to. That's one of my favorite things about slony.
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:03:19AM +0200, Henry wrote: > just much simpler to use -- not as flexible and as powerful as Slony, but > if all you need to do is replicate some tables with minimum fuss and > without having to learn a new language, then Skytools (based on my > personal experience with a cluster and Slony versus Skytools) is my > recommendation. This is probably good advice. For simple cases, Slony's sort of a pain in the neck. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/