Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code

* Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> [081211 10:03]:

> Sending data twice is not a requirement I ever heard expressed, nor has
> the lack of ability to send it twice been voiced as a criticism for any
> form of replication I'm familiar with. Ask the DRBD guys if sending data
> twice is necessary or required to make replication work.
>
> If multiple people think its a good idea then I respect your choice of
> option.
>
> But I also think that many or perhaps most people will choose not to
> send data twice and I respect that choice of option also.

Well, PostgreSQL has WAL, so we've already accepted the notion of "send
data twice" being useful sometimes...

But I would note that the "archive" and "streaming" are both sending the
data *different* places... or at least, in my case would be...

And, also, I know WAL archiving isn't necessary for replication to work.
but it's necessary for me to sleep comfortably at night ;-)

I'm just suprised that people are willing to throw away their
backup/PITR archiving once they have a singl "live slave" up.

a.

--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.