From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Glyn Astill" <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | "Jeff Larsen" <jlar310(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: replication in Postgres |
Date: | 2007-11-26 19:25:18 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10711261125j45734a9ehea5902c9b779124c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Nov 26, 2007 1:02 PM, Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
> It it possible to get a system that does syncronous replication and
> also allows slaves to catch up if they're down for a period of time
> like you can with asyncronous?
Ummm, if one server falls behind, and the other keeps going, that, by
definition, is not synchronous.
In a synchronous system, you either wait for the other system to catch
up, or declare it dead to the world and keep going without it.
I do like the recommendation of setting up a pair of synch masters and
having one feed a slony slave for big nasty queries.
> Of course a grid or a clustwer is better to makesure all servers are
> in sync, but there's performance issues with the 2 phase commit isn't
> there?
ayup. The most important word you can learn to use when talking about
replication and clustering is TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as
a free lunch.
> Just for the record I'm a programmer, not a database person really,
> so I only know the basics.
Stick around, you'll learn plenty here. Admittedly a little bluntly
at times. :)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Crawford | 2007-11-26 19:30:24 | Re: Primary Key |
Previous Message | Scott Ribe | 2007-11-26 19:15:20 | Re: Primary Key |