Its true, many of the replication options that exists for PostgreSQL
have not seen any updates in a while.
If you only looking for redundancy and not a performance gain you
should look at PostgreSQL PITR (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/backup-online.html
For Master-Slave replication i think that Slony http://www.slony.info/
is most up to date. But it does not support DDL changes.
You may wich to look at pgpool http://pgpool.projects.postgresql.org/
it supports Synchronous replication (wich is good for data integrity,
but can be bad for performance).
These are some of the open source options. I do not have any
experience with the commercial onces.
On 21 aug 2008, at 19.53, Dan Harris wrote:
> My company finally has the means to install a new database server
> for replication. I have Googled and found a lot of sparse
> information out there regarding replication systems for PostgreSQL
> and a lot of it looks very out-of-date. Can I please get some ideas
> from those of you that are currently using fail-over replication
> systems? What advantage does your solution have? What are the
> "gotchas" I need to worry about?
> My desire would be to have a parallel server that could act as a hot
> standby system with automatic fail over in a multi-master role. If
> our primary server goes down for whatever reason, the secondary
> would take over and handle the load seamlessly. I think this is
> really the "holy grail" scenario and I understand how difficult it
> is to achieve. Especially since we make frequent use of sequences
> in our databases. If MM is too difficult, I'm willing to accept a
> hot-standby read-only system that will handle queries until we can
> fix whatever ails the master.
> We are primary an OLAP environment but there is a constant stream of
> inserts into the databases. There are 47 different databases hosted
> on the primary server and this number will continue to scale up to
> whatever the server seems to support. The reason I mention this
> number is that it seems that those systems that make heavy use of
> schema changes require a lot of "fiddling". For a single database,
> this doesn't seem too problematic, but any manual work involved and
> administrative overhead will scale at the same rate as the database
> count grows and I certainly want to minimize as much fiddling as
> We are using 8.3 and the total combined size for the PG data
> directory is 226G. Hopefully I didn't neglect to include more
> relevant information.
> As always, thank you for your insight.
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2008-08-21 21:04:36|
|Subject: Re: The state of PG replication in 2008/Q2?|
|Previous:||From: André Volpato||Date: 2008-08-21 20:05:12|
|Subject: Re: Postgres not using array|