From: | John Cheng <johnlicheng(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Binary Replication and Slony |
Date: | 2010-09-20 15:21:54 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin12bq-v-3j3Xg+niASj9GLbUwmJ-Eovws2o4ha@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-general |
Congrats on the 9.0 release of PostgreSQL. One of the features I am really
interested in is the built-in binary replication.
Our production environment has been using PostgreSQL for more than 5 years
(since this project started). We have been using Slony-I as our replication
mechanism. I am interested to find out the pros and cons of Slony vs the
built-in replication in 9.0. Based on what I understand:
* Slony has a higher overhead than the binary replication in 9.0
* When using Slony, schema change must be applied via slonik (in most cases)
* Unfortunately, IMO it is easy to make a mistake when applying schema
changes in Slony, fortunately, it is easy to drop and recreate the
replication sets
* Slony is an asynchronous replication mechanism
* Slony allows you to replication some tables, while ignoring others
* PostgreSQL 9.0 with hot standby & streaming replication is an asynchronous
replication mechanism
* Overhead is low compared to Slony
Are there some cases where it is better to use Slony, for example, when you
must specifically exclude tables from replication? I believe our system will
be better off using the built-in replication mechanism of 9.0, and I am
guessing most people will be in the same boat.
--
---
John L Cheng
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-20 15:29:21 | Re: Terms. |
Previous Message | Dmitriy Igrishin | 2010-09-19 10:32:05 | Re: Terms. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2010-09-20 16:22:14 | Re: Binary Replication and Slony |
Previous Message | Scott Ribe | 2010-09-20 14:56:59 | Re: where does postgres keep the query result until it is returned? |