Re: [HACKERS] database replication

DWalker(at)black-oak(dot)com wrote:

> 6) To handle replication I basically check the local "last
> replication time" and compare it against the remote PGR_TIME
> fields. If the remote PGR_TIME is greater than the last replication
> time then change the local copy of the database, otherwise, change
> the remote end of the database. At this point I don't have a way to
> know WHICH field changed between the two replicas so either I do ROW
> level replication or I check each field. I check PGR_TIME to
> determine which field is the most current. Some fine tuning of this
> process will have to occur no doubt.

Interesting idea. I can see how this might sync up two databases
somehow. For true replication, however, I would always want every
replicated database to be, at the very least, internally consistent
(i.e., referential integrity), even if it was a little behind on
processing transactions. In this method, its not clear how
consistency is every achieved/guaranteed at any point in time if the
input stream of changes is continuous. If the input stream ceased,
then I can see how this approach might eventually catch up and totally
resync everything, but it looks *very* computationally expensive.

But I might have missed something. How would internal consistency be
maintained?

> 7) The commandline utility, fired off by something like cron, could
> run several times during the day -- command line parameters can be
> implemented to say PUSH ALL CHANGES TO SERVER A, or PULL ALL CHANGES
> FROM SERVER B.

My two cents is that, while I can see this kind of database syncing as
valuable, this is not the kind of "replication" I had in mind. This
may already possible by simply copying the database. What replication
means to me is a live, continuously streaming sequence of updates from
one database to another where the replicated database is always
internally consistent, available for read-only queries, and never "too
far" out of sync with the source/primary database.

What does replication mean to others?

Cheers,
Ed Loehr