From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Darren Johnson'" <djohnson(at)greatbridge(dot)com>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | AW: AW: Postgres Replication |
Date: | 2001-06-12 13:50:09 |
Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA68796336831F@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Here are some disadvantages to using a "trigger based" approach:
>
> 1) Triggers simply transfer individual data items when they
> are modified, they do not keep track of transactions.
> 2) The execution of triggers within a database imposes a performance
> overhead to that database.
> 3) Triggers require careful management by database administrators.
> Someone needs to keep track of all the "alarms" going off.
> 4) The activation of triggers in a database cannot be easily
> rolled back or undone.
Yes, points 2 and 3 are a given, although point 2 buys you the functionality
of transparent locking across all involved db servers.
Points 1 and 4 are only the case for a trigger mechanism that does
not use remote connection and 2-phase commit.
Imho an implementation that opens a separate client connection to the
replication target is only suited for async replication, and for that a WAL
based solution would probably impose less overhead.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Pilosov | 2001-06-12 13:58:21 | inet/cidr wierdness (casting) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-12 13:38:57 | Re: AW: Implicit order-by in Postgresql? |