X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32E9476494 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 15:16:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mta5.snet.net (mta5.snet.net [204.60.203.77]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D644A476285 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 15:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.snet.net (pop.snet.net [204.60.203.72]) by mta5.snet.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SNET-mx-1.2/D-1.1.1.1/O-1.1.1.1) with ESMTP id h46JGtB8017355; Tue, 6 May 2003 15:16:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [64.252.95.167] X-SBCIS-MTA: [pop.snet.net] Received: from kencast.com (167.95.252.64.snet.net [64.252.95.167]) by pop.snet.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SNET-pop-1.2/D-1.1.1.1/O-1.1.1.1) with ESMTP id h46JGtKF000919; Tue, 6 May 2003 15:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EB8088A.5010205@kencast.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 15:10:02 -0400 From: Wei Weng User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030314 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael A Nachbaur Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql Replication Proxy (was Re: Replication for a References: <200305061040.03364.mike@nachbaur.com> In-Reply-To: <200305061040.03364.mike@nachbaur.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-35.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200305/102 X-Sequence-Number: 13267 Michael: 1: It will probably need a messaging system that can properly register/unregister a backend database system. a SIP like syntax comes into mind. (or a XML message, for the ease of future expansion) 2: What do you mean by "per-database basis"? Database as the concept of database schema? or seperate physical database server? 3: How does the proxy server know that a backend server failed in commit? Wei Michael A Nachbaur wrote: >LOL! Depending on how much FUD I can throw at the guys higher up in the food >chain at my office, I might be able to get some budget space to develop >something like this. There are some significant technical hurdles I have to >overcome, but I think it's doable. The analogy I came up with is SCSI RAID >for databases. You can rip a database server out, and the overall system >will still function...toss it back in, and updates will still happen. I >would also like to be able to throw a fresh database in place and have it >mirror the existing database servers in the background so you don't have to >go through the complicated procedure of dumping/restoring the database >servers by hand. > >Re: FIFO, yeah, I realized that after I sent the message. > >Does anyone have any ideas for me on this? I think it might make sense to use >PostgreSQL as the storage mechanism for the proxy server, but that sort of >defeats the purpose of having a replication system. Maybe spread can be used >to distribute the messages to different servers, but I'm not too familiar >with it. > >Also, one final note, I'm a Perl programmer, so anything I build will be >written in that. If anyone has objections, let me know and maybe we could >work together on something. > > >