O.k. I know there is no way we will hit this for 8.5. So this is more of
a future discussion more than anything. We at CMD have been working
diligently on our next version of Mammoth Replicator, 1.9. It is
currently revved at 8.4. I expect that we will be close to done if not
done, by the release of 8.5.
My question is, do we have any interest in working on getting this into
core? To give those that don't have any background with Mammoth here is
the run down:
1. It is a patch to .Org. E.g; it integrates with the backend unlike
Slony or Londiste.
2. 1.9 remove the SPOF problem of the 1.8 series by adding forwarder
capabilities within the postmaster itself. (1.8 used a secondary daemon)
3. It has been developed for years as a proprietary product, but was
released as BSD about a year ago.
It supports the following features:
* Data replication
* Partial replication (to multiple different slaves)
* Large Object replication
* ACL (GRANT/REVOKE) replication
* ALTER/CREATE ROLE
* Promotion (And promote back)
* Firing triggers on a slave with replicated relations (for reporting,
materialized views etc...)
The docs are here:
There are some limitations, which could be addressed. I would have to
talk with Alvaro and Alexey further on them but this is more of a field
If the community is interested in having a full scale replication system
in the backend (HS and SR provide different facilities) then CMD is
interested in making this community ready.
If the community isn't interested, we are likely to start putting our
efforts elsewhere (as opposed to Mammoth Replicator).
Joshua D. Drake
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-01-15 23:30:44|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-01-15 23:12:59|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication, loose ends|