X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C859DC97D for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:28:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74468-03 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:28:16 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from outbound.internet-mail-service.net (outbound6.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.197]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D369DC863 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:28:13 -0400 (AST) Received: from idiom.com (idiom.com [216.240.32.1]) by outbound.internet-mail-service.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBB323FEFE for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.109] (adsl-69-107-112-198.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [69.107.112.198]) by idiom.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k21JSDRg069961 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:28:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bryce1@obviously.com) Message-ID: <4405F5C6.1040300@obviously.com> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:28:06 -0800 From: Bryce Nesbitt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050921 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Replication - state of the art? References: <20060301133041.8EFFA19B797@smtp03l.fasthosts.co.uk> <4405DF32.4070307@obviously.com> <20060301182803.GK17356@phlogiston.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20060301182803.GK17356@phlogiston.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.152 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152] X-Spam-Score: 0.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/21 X-Sequence-Number: 24367 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > 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. > Actually let me loosen that a bit: we don't need two phase commit. We can loose the most recent transaction, or even the last few seconds of transactions. What we can't survive is -- on the day of the emergency -- a long and complicated DB rebuild with mistakes and hard-to-debug data issues. >> 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. > There's no fire creating demand for replication, so there is little time budget. So is there a sort of padded, no-sharp-corners, playroom that gets us 90% of the way there? We're looking to reduce what's now a 24 hour window on data loss (since the most recent nightly) into something more reasonable (like 500 milliseconds). But risk -- of data corruption -- and time --too much-- will can the project.