Re: Peer to peer replication of Postgresql databases

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha(at)lklug(dot)pdn(dot)ac(dot)lk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Peer to peer replication of Postgresql databases
Date: 2002-10-11 16:07:00
Message-ID: 87bs61kli3.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

[ pgsql-patches removed from Cc: list ]

Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha(at)lklug(dot)pdn(dot)ac(dot)lk> writes:
> I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I have
> already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner.

Did you look at the research behind Postgres-R, and the pgreplication
stuff?

> - When a frontend process sends a read query, each backend process
> does that from its own data area.

Surely that's not correct -- a SELECT can be handled by *any one*
node, not each and every one, right?

> - There are two types of write queries. Postmasters use seperate
> communication channels for each. One is the sequencial channel which
> carries writes whose order is important, and the non-sequencial
> channel carries write queries whose order is not important.

How do you distinguish between these?

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-10-11 16:36:48 Re: inline newNode()
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2002-10-11 16:04:31 move 0 behaviour

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-10-11 16:36:48 Re: inline newNode()
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2002-10-11 15:50:02 Re: .cvsignore file