X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEDA9FB284 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:31:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46521-06 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:30:55 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594D39FB259 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:30:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com ([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:30:51 +0000 Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com; 10 Jul 2006 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: Re: MS-SQL<->Postgres sync From: Scott Marlowe To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20060710162520.GA4590@phlogiston.dyndns.org> References: <20060710162520.GA4590@phlogiston.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1152556251.6540.14.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:30:51 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200607/156 X-Sequence-Number: 25730 On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 11:25, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:27:52AM -0400, Kevin Bednar wrote: > > Looking to keep 2 databases in sync, at least semi-realtime if possible, > > although running a batch update every x mins wouldn't be out of the > > question. One db is postgres and the other is ms-sql. It's to keep inventory > > in sync from 2 seperate locations, one being a brick and mortar store and > > the other an ecommerce system for a web site. Any and all help is > > appreciated since I can't find much of anything on syncing these 2 database > > systems! > > I don't think there's actually any product that does this right now, > unless you're willing to use some sort of statement replica system > (which means you have to deal with failures in one database and not > another). Is the idea that this is multi-master? I wonder if it would be possible to write a set of triggers for MSSQL that would allow you to run slony daemons that connected to it and a postgresql server and did replication. Just mad scientisting for a second.