Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Date: 2008-05-29 19:56:12
Message-ID: 200805292156.13976.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
Jeff Davis wrote:
> It depends on what we mean by synchronous. Do we mean "the WAL record
> has made it to the disk on the slave system," or "the WAL record has
> been applied on the slave system"?

DRBD, which is a common warm standby solution for PostgreSQL at the moment, 
provides various levels of synchronicity.  I imagine we could also define, as 
need arises, various levels, some of which may be the ones you listed.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-05-29 19:59:55
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-05-29 19:54:03
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-05-29 19:59:55
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-05-29 19:54:03
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

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