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 889C653C74; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:42:08 -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 45883-04; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:42:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hosting.commandprompt.com (128.commandprompt.com [207.173.200.128]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34E953E6D; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:41:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.105] (clbb-248.saw.net [64.146.135.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by hosting.commandprompt.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j3OIZ4ma009784; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:35:07 -0700 Message-ID: <426BE832.20904@commandprompt.com> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:40:50 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Davis Cc: Bruce Momjian , "Marc G. Fournier" , Robert Treat , PostgreSQL-documentation Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove replicaiton FAQ item. References: <200504241201.j3OC15V17101@candle.pha.pa.us> <1114365882.3567.21.camel@jeff> In-Reply-To: <1114365882.3567.21.camel@jeff> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.035 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/22 X-Sequence-Number: 2952 Jeff Davis wrote: > Should the text include a mention of synchronous vs. asynchronous? Or > does master-master imply synchronous? It shouldn't. It is possible to have synchronous replication without it being master<->master. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > Regards, > Jeff Davis > > On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 08:01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Robert Treat wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sunday 14 November 2004 16:33, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>>> >>>>>Log Message: >>>>>----------- >>>>>Remove replicaiton FAQ item. >>>>> >>>>>Modified Files: >>>>>-------------- >>>>> pgsql/doc: >>>>> FAQ (r1.269 -> r1.270) >>>>> >>>>>(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/FAQ.diff?r1=1.269&r2= >>>>>1.270) pgsql/doc/src/FAQ: >>>>> FAQ.html (r1.227 -> r1.228) >>>>> >>>>>(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html.diff >>>>>?r1=1.227&r2=1.228) >>>> >>>>While the answer may have been a little dated, this still seems to be an FAQ. >>>>Was there a discussion on removing this? If so I'll go read that, but ISTM >>>>this question should remain. >>> >>>agreed, this definitly does fall under a "Very FAQ" kinda thing ... >>>pointers to the various methods that are currently in use, at a minimum, >>>would be good ... >> >>Yep, big mistake my removing the replication FAQ item. I have re-added a >>new one: >> >> 4.21) What replication solutions are available? >> >> Though "replication" is a single term, there are two major replication >> technologies. Multi-master replication allows read/write queries to be >> sent to multiple replicated computers. Using this capability has a >> serious performance impact. Pgcluster is the most popular such solution >> available for PostgreSQL. Master-slave replication allows a single >> master to receive read/write queries, with slaves able to accept only >> read/SELECT queries. The most popular master-slave PostgreSQL >> replication solution is Slony. There are also commercial and >> hardware-based replication solutions available. >> > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend