This page in other versions: 9.0 / 9.1 / 9.2 / 9.3  |  Development versions: devel / 9.4

25.1. Comparison of Different Solutions

Shared Disk Failover

Shared disk failover avoids synchronization overhead by having only one copy of the database. It uses a single disk array that is shared by multiple servers. If the main database server fails, the standby server is able to mount and start the database as though it were recovering from a database crash. This allows rapid failover with no data loss.

Shared hardware functionality is common in network storage devices. Using a network file system is also possible, though care must be taken that the file system has full POSIX behavior (see Section 17.2.1). One significant limitation of this method is that if the shared disk array fails or becomes corrupt, the primary and standby servers are both nonfunctional. Another issue is that the standby server should never access the shared storage while the primary server is running.

File System (Block-Device) Replication

A modified version of shared hardware functionality is file system replication, where all changes to a file system are mirrored to a file system residing on another computer. The only restriction is that the mirroring must be done in a way that ensures the standby server has a consistent copy of the file system — specifically, writes to the standby must be done in the same order as those on the master. DRBD is a popular file system replication solution for Linux.

Transaction Log Shipping

Warm and hot standby servers can be kept current by reading a stream of write-ahead log (WAL) records. If the main server fails, the standby contains almost all of the data of the main server, and can be quickly made the new master database server. This can be synchronous or asynchronous and can only be done for the entire database server.

A standby server can be implemented using file-based log shipping (Section 25.2) or streaming replication (see Section 25.2.5), or a combination of both. For information on hot standby, see Section 25.5.

Trigger-Based Master-Standby Replication

A master-standby replication setup sends all data modification queries to the master server. The master server asynchronously sends data changes to the standby server. The standby can answer read-only queries while the master server is running. The standby server is ideal for data warehouse queries.

Slony-I is an example of this type of replication, with per-table granularity, and support for multiple standby servers. Because it updates the standby server asynchronously (in batches), there is possible data loss during fail over.

Statement-Based Replication Middleware

With statement-based replication middleware, a program intercepts every SQL query and sends it to one or all servers. Each server operates independently. Read-write queries must be sent to all servers, so that every server receives any changes. But read-only queries can be sent to just one server, allowing the read workload to be distributed among them.

If queries are simply broadcast unmodified, functions like random(), CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, and sequences can have different values on different servers. This is because each server operates independently, and because SQL queries are broadcast (and not actual modified rows). If this is unacceptable, either the middleware or the application must query such values from a single server and then use those values in write queries. Another option is to use this replication option with a traditional master-standby setup, i.e. data modification queries are sent only to the master and are propagated to the standby servers via master-standby replication, not by the replication middleware. Care must also be taken that all transactions either commit or abort on all servers, perhaps using two-phase commit (PREPARE TRANSACTION and COMMIT PREPARED. Pgpool-II and Continuent Tungsten are examples of this type of replication.

Asynchronous Multimaster Replication

For servers that are not regularly connected, like laptops or remote servers, keeping data consistent among servers is a challenge. Using asynchronous multimaster replication, each server works independently, and periodically communicates with the other servers to identify conflicting transactions. The conflicts can be resolved by users or conflict resolution rules. Bucardo is an example of this type of replication.

Synchronous Multimaster Replication

In synchronous multimaster replication, each server can accept write requests, and modified data is transmitted from the original server to every other server before each transaction commits. Heavy write activity can cause excessive locking, leading to poor performance. In fact, write performance is often worse than that of a single server. Read requests can be sent to any server. Some implementations use shared disk to reduce the communication overhead. Synchronous multimaster replication is best for mostly read workloads, though its big advantage is that any server can accept write requests — there is no need to partition workloads between master and standby servers, and because the data changes are sent from one server to another, there is no problem with non-deterministic functions like random().

PostgreSQL does not offer this type of replication, though PostgreSQL two-phase commit (PREPARE TRANSACTION and COMMIT PREPARED) can be used to implement this in application code or middleware.

Commercial Solutions

Because PostgreSQL is open source and easily extended, a number of companies have taken PostgreSQL and created commercial closed-source solutions with unique failover, replication, and load balancing capabilities.

Table 25-1 summarizes the capabilities of the various solutions listed above.

Table 25-1. High Availability, Load Balancing, and Replication Feature Matrix

Feature Shared Disk Failover File System Replication Transaction Log Shipping Trigger-Based Master-Standby Replication Statement-Based Replication Middleware Asynchronous Multimaster Replication Synchronous Multimaster Replication
Most Common Implementation NAS DRBD Streaming Repl. Slony pgpool-II Bucardo  
Communication Method shared disk disk blocks WAL table rows SQL table rows table rows and row locks
No special hardware required  
Allows multiple master servers        
No master server overhead        
No waiting for multiple servers   with sync off    
Master failure will never lose data with sync on    
Standby accept read-only queries     with hot
Per-table granularity        
No conflict resolution necessary    

There are a few solutions that do not fit into the above categories:

Data Partitioning

Data partitioning splits tables into data sets. Each set can be modified by only one server. For example, data can be partitioned by offices, e.g., London and Paris, with a server in each office. If queries combining London and Paris data are necessary, an application can query both servers, or master/standby replication can be used to keep a read-only copy of the other office's data on each server.

Multiple-Server Parallel Query Execution

Many of the above solutions allow multiple servers to handle multiple queries, but none allow a single query to use multiple servers to complete faster. This solution allows multiple servers to work concurrently on a single query. It is usually accomplished by splitting the data among servers and having each server execute its part of the query and return results to a central server where they are combined and returned to the user. Pgpool-II has this capability. Also, this can be implemented using the PL/Proxy tool set.

Add Comment

Please use this form to add your own comments regarding your experience with particular features of PostgreSQL, clarifications of the documentation, or hints for other users. Please note, this is not a support forum, and your IP address will be logged. If you have a question or need help, please see the faq, try a mailing list, or join us on IRC. Note that submissions containing URLs or other keywords commonly found in 'spam' comments may be silently discarded. Please contact the webmaster if you think this is happening to you in error.

Proceed to the comment form.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group