X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11F4544EC; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:04:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26412-03; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:04:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net (outbound04.telus.net [199.185.220.223]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9474B543F4; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:04:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost ([199.185.220.240]) by priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with ESMTP id <20050425000421.EMLY22020.priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net@localhost>; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:04:21 -0600 Received: from 64.180.225.200 ( [64.180.225.200]) as user a3a18850@192.168.200.1 by webmail.telus.net with HTTP; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:04:21 -0700 Message-ID: <1114387461.426c34053047b@webmail.telus.net> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:04:21 -0700 From: Mischa Sandberg To: Bruce Momjian Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" , Jeff Davis , "Marc G. Fournier" , Robert Treat , PostgreSQL-documentation Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove replicaiton FAQ item. References: <200504242324.j3ONOaO26057@candle.pha.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <200504242324.j3ONOaO26057@candle.pha.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1-cvs X-Originating-IP: 64.180.225.200 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.082 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200504/26 X-Sequence-Number: 2956 Quoting Bruce Momjian : > Mischa Sandberg wrote: > > About all you can say is, it is not possible to implement > synchronous > > master-master replication, because of conflict resolution of > > simultaneous transactions. > > You mean asynchronous master-master? There are some implementations > (Sybase?, pgreplicator) that do this and have conflict resolution. Forgive my kibitz, then; perhaps my head has been stuck in sand a while. You're right, I forgot about the nicer bits of Sybase RepServer. Synchronous replication was scratched early in the project, because two-phase commit took too long across a dozen db servers. Pgreplicator advertises itself as a "store-and-forward asynch replica (sic) engine." (quoth http://pgreplicator.sourceforge.net/ ) -- "Dreams come true, not free." -- S.Sondheim, ITW