Re: AW: AW: Postgres Replication

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: reinoud(at)xs4all(dot)nl
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Postgres Replication
Date: 2001-06-12 23:39:18
Message-ID: 16439.992389158@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

reinoud(at)xs4all(dot)nl (Reinoud van Leeuwen) writes:
> Well as I read back the thread I see 2 different approaches to
> replication:
> ...
> I can think of some scenarios where I would definitely want to
> *choose* one of the options.

Yes. IIRC, it looks to be possible to support a form of async
replication using the Postgres-R approach: you allow the cluster
to break apart when communications fail, and then rejoin when
your link comes back to life. (This can work in principle, how
close it is to reality is another question; but the rejoin operation
is the same as crash recovery, so you have to have it anyway.)

So this seems to me to allow getting most of the benefits of the async
approach. OTOH it is difficult to see how to go the other way: getting
the benefits of a synchronous solution atop a basically-async
implementation doesn't seem like it can work.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2001-06-13 00:03:43 Re: Big5 contains '\'
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-12 23:33:15 Patch to warn about oid/xid wraparound