Re: Using RSYNC for replication?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: jhihn1 <jhihn1(at)umbc(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Using RSYNC for replication?
Date: 2003-01-28 18:39:43
Message-ID: 22704.1043779183@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

jhihn1 <jhihn1(at)umbc(dot)edu> writes:
> I don't understand what is so hard about doing it this way.

If you want separate installations, make separate installations. Don't
expect multiple databases in a single installation to be implemented
with the same amount of overhead as separate installations would be.
If we did it that way, we'd legitimately get complaints.

> It would make replication so simple and fast.

No it wouldn't; as I've been trying to explain to you, there are a lot
of reasons why rsync'ing a database won't work. Fixing a few of them
doesn't produce a working solution. Nor are we going to contort the
system design to make a fundamentally wrongheaded approach to
replication work. rsync is just not the basis of a workable solution,
because it doesn't and can't know anything about the database state or
the semantics of the different files in the database.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Buttafuoco 2003-01-28 18:42:26 Re: Status of tablespaces
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-01-28 18:31:52 Re: Status of tablespaces