On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> On Monday 30 November 2009 03:57:11 Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
>>> Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>>>> we tried to discuss on a lower level what should be needed
>>>> for a partial replication based on streaming replication.
>>> We need to discuss a "partial recovery" before the partial
>> If you do the filtering on the sending side you dont actually need
>> partial recover in the sense that you filter in the rmgr or similar.
>> Or do I miss something?
> the question is if filtering on the sending side is actually the
> "right thing" to do.
> It increases the overhead and the complexity on the master,
> especially if you think about different (partial) replication
> agreements for different slaves and it might also be hard to
> integrate with the planned sync/async modes.
> On the other hand if you filter on the master you might be able to
> avoid a lot of network traffic du to filtered wal records.
> I think for a first step it might make more sense to look into doing
> the filtering on the receiving side and look into actual integration
> with SR at a later stage.
one problem with not-filtering on the master is that you will end up
with a lot of complexity if you start adding new tables to a replica
because you just cannot add tables as easy as when you are doing stuff
on the slave. the procedure seems ways more complex.
in addition to that you are sending WAL which has to be discarded
we thought about filtering "outside the master" a lot but to me it did
not sound like good plan.
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Reyergasse 9 / 2
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig||Date: 2009-11-30 16:51:22|
|Subject: Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication|
|Previous:||From: Dave Cramer||Date: 2009-11-30 16:43:30|
|Subject: Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl|