Thread: PostgreSQL replication on Windows
Are there any replication solutions that have been tested on Windows. The options listed on the PostgreSQL site all require Linux/Unix or are only available as source. I am not able to compile these sources. Harm van der Ploeg Relitech BV
On Thursday 20 January 2005 06:14, Harm van der Ploeg wrote:
> Are there any replication solutions that have been tested on
> Windows. The options listed on the PostgreSQL site all require
> Linux/Unix or are only available as source. I am not able to
> compile these sources.
>
I think all of the open source ones require *nix, although I think you could
set up slony on a central machine and use it to replicate remote windows
servers if you wanted. If your willing to pay for such software, I believe
command prompt has plans to port thier system (mammoth replicator) to
windows, so you might want to contact them.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
The world rejoiced as harm.van.der.ploeg@relitech.nl (Harm van der Ploeg) wrote: > Are there any replication solutions that have been tested on > Windows. The options listed on the PostgreSQL site all require > Linux/Unix or are only available as source. I am not able to > compile these sources. In the case of Slony-I, no one has yet volunteered to add such a port. As one of the Slony-I developers, while I don't oppose such a port, I have neither the access to Windows(tm) nor the interest in usage on Windows(tm) that would be required for me to put effort into it. I'm already quite busy enough with other things. The same appears to be true of the other developers, as well. If you consider it valuable, you'll have to find someone to do the port. That may mean needing to pay someone money to do the work. This sort of thing is liable to be an ongoing problem for use of PostgreSQL on Windows(tm); there are a number of PostgreSQL extensions that require the ability to compile from source, and it is unfortunately quite common for Windows(tm)-based users to be pretty helpless in this fashion. As an alternative, I believe that Command Prompt's "Mammoth Replicator" has been ported to run on Windows; you may want to enquire about it and see if its properties are suitable for your purposes. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'acm.org'; http://cbbrowne.com/info/slony.html If the FreeBSD team could get away with it, they would probably use warnings like "Contains live plague bacteria. Beware the Rabid Hippopotami. May cause nausea and vomiting." -- Michael Lucas, re: FreeBSD-CURRENT
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (Robert Treat) wrote: > On Thursday 20 January 2005 06:14, Harm van der Ploeg wrote: >> Are there any replication solutions that have been tested on >> Windows. The options listed on the PostgreSQL site all require >> Linux/Unix or are only available as source. I am not able to >> compile these sources. > > I think all of the open source ones require *nix, although I think > you could set up slony on a central machine and use it to replicate > remote windows servers if you wanted. If your willing to pay for > such software, I believe command prompt has plans to port thier > system (mammoth replicator) to windows, so you might want to contact > them. All the replication systems I know of require some compiled code running on all servers. For Slony-I to function, for instance, requires having some triggers implemented in C which would therefore have to be compiled on Windows. The same is true for the "open source" version of eRServer. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'ntlug.org'; http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/multiplexor.html The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.
On Sunday 23 January 2005 08:41, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
(Robert Treat) wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 January 2005 06:14, Harm van der Ploeg wrote:
> >> Are there any replication solutions that have been tested on
> >> Windows. The options listed on the PostgreSQL site all require
> >> Linux/Unix or are only available as source. I am not able to
> >> compile these sources.
> >
> > I think all of the open source ones require *nix, although I think
> > you could set up slony on a central machine and use it to replicate
> > remote windows servers if you wanted.
>
> For Slony-I to function, for instance, requires having some triggers
> implemented in C which would therefore have to be compiled on Windows.
Christopher, you know the code far better than I, but I don't think there is
anything too crazy in the C triggers in slony that would make it difficult to
compile on Windows (relative to other C functions anyways), do you ?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (Robert Treat) wrote: > On Sunday 23 January 2005 08:41, Christopher Browne wrote: >> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when xzilla@users.sourceforge.net > (Robert Treat) wrote: >> > On Thursday 20 January 2005 06:14, Harm van der Ploeg wrote: >> >> Are there any replication solutions that have been tested on >> >> Windows. The options listed on the PostgreSQL site all require >> >> Linux/Unix or are only available as source. I am not able to >> >> compile these sources. >> > >> > I think all of the open source ones require *nix, although I >> > think you could set up slony on a central machine and use it to >> > replicate remote windows servers if you wanted. >> >> For Slony-I to function, for instance, requires having some >> triggers implemented in C which would therefore have to be compiled >> on Windows. > > Christopher, you know the code far better than I, but I don't think > there is anything too crazy in the C triggers in slony that would > make it difficult to compile on Windows (relative to other C > functions anyways), do you ? No, there's no reason to expect these triggers to be problematic. What _is_ problematic is that the average Windows install doesn't include a C compiler, making it rather tough for someone to add anything in after the fact. Then there's the challenge that if YOU compile the C functions with YOUR environment, the binaries might not be easy to guarantee to match up against a set of PostgreSQL binaries compiled by someone else. If your compile environment matches well what is being used to produce "quasi-official PostgreSQL binaries for Windows," then there's reason for hope. One rather less hopeful instance of this is that I _know_ that I can't hook in Perl stuff compiled using GCC to the AIX 'standard Perl' (that was presumably compiled using VisualAge C). GCC and VAC don't link together happily enough for Perl stuff to "turn out." Porting trouble found there... -- "cbbrowne","@","gmail.com" http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sap.html It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than 10 functions on 10 data structures. -- Alan Perlis