On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 10:20, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> As far as WAL, it currently has the tid's in the WAL file which will not
> match other servers unless those servers are read-only. It is tempting
> to think that WAL or some other existing mechanism will allow us to do
> replication cheaply, but it is my understanding that the interactions of
> multiple write server is quite complicated and requires an amount of
> overhead mechanism that is similar to our current transaction mechanisms
> that allow multiple people to modify the same table.
Drat. I was hoping that the WAL was an overlooked 'easy' solution...
but from the sound of this thread, the WAL misses some key issues. And
it doesn't help the master-master environment at all, which I forgot.
> People know I am all for the quick solution if it fits into our existing
> code, but I am afraid replication is one of those items that has to be
> designed from the ground up on a foundation that is backed by research
> and experts in the field. I think this replication project has the
> potential to give us a replication capability that is better than
> the commercial offering of other databases.
Ned Wolpert <ned(dot)wolpert(at)knowledgenet(dot)com>
D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Sean Chittenden||Date: 2002-02-22 18:25:04|
|Subject: Re: Replication direction|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-02-22 18:07:49|
|Subject: Re: Combining chars in psql (pre-patch)|