From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <fujii(dot)masao(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replication |
Date: | 2006-08-23 11:36:37 |
Message-ID: | 44EC3DC5.6030508@bluegap.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> But if you have very few writes, then there seems no reason to do sync
> anyway.
I think there is one: high-availability. A standby-server which can
continue if your primary fails. Of course sync is only needed if you
absolutely cannot effort loosing any committed transaction.
>> Another important factor is the amount of conflicting transactions.
>
> That too, but just the need to do *any* locking on all nodes will
> significantly slow down sync replication
If you implement sync replication with locking, yes. But there are
better ways: the Postgres-R approach does not do network locking, but
aborts conflicting transactions just before committing. That results in
much less network traffic (one GCS-message per writing-transaction).
Regards
Markus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tomas | 2006-08-23 11:45:31 | Re: Where is hstore? |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-08-23 11:20:06 | Re: Replication |