Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:03:45 +0200 (EET)
From: pgsql-admin@kolttonen.fi
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: The current shape of PG master-slave replication
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANUg7LCwCiaSDcpvrQdCCuLwt7ro1K2Qg8utgh7JziiM+1dacw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.1811160701360.25223@localhost>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.21.1811152002490.16940@localhost>
 <CANUg7LCwCiaSDcpvrQdCCuLwt7ro1K2Qg8utgh7JziiM+1dacw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LFD 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Payal Singh wrote:

> It is more reliable than default MySQL replication. Default MySQL
> replication is logical whereas default postgres replication is binary. In
> the crudest of terms, if something goes wrong you can't just 'skip'
> statements in postgres to get replication to work like you can in MySQL.
> This ensures better data integrity during replication. As for non-defaults,
> pg10 and onwards support logical replication as well, with the usual
> caveats that logical replication comes with in any database.

I see. Thanks for that explanation. 

I really have to study these DB things a bit more in order to gain better 
understanding of replication's basic models and structure.

Best regards,
Unto Sten