From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Replication - state of the art?
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:28:03 -0500
Message-ID: <20060301182803.GK17356@phlogiston.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4405DF32.4070307@obviously.com>
References: <20060301133041.8EFFA19B797@smtp03l.fasthosts.co.uk>
<4405DF32.4070307@obviously.com>
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:51:46AM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> switch over and rebuild the DB. "No-lost transaction" is far more
> important than switch time.
You can't guarantee that without two phase commit, no matter what you
do. Log shipping doesn't require you to have an active database
running on the origin (slony-1 does, which is one of its potential
drawbacks). But that won't help you if a transaction committed at
the instant an earthquake hit your datacentre, wiping it out. You
can't get the data off the failed origin no matter what.
> Anyone here using replication or transaction journaling? Has it proved
> reliable, easy to maintain?
Define "easy". Every possible replication system is going to have
slightly grotty corners into which you find yourself wandering. The
question is merely whether the room is octagonal or merely
rectangular.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Subject: Re: Replication - state of the art?
In-Reply-To: <20060301182803.GK17356@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox