From: | Bo Lorentsen <bl(at)netgroup(dot)dk> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication and PITR |
Date: | 2006-09-22 06:12:19 |
Message-ID: | 45137EC3.50708@netgroup.dk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jeff Davis wrote:
> 8.2 makes PITR much easier to use for the situation you'd like. In 8.1,
> a WAL might sit around for a while before it becomes full and then sent
> off. 8.2 allows you to force a WAL to be sent, and it also allows a
> standby mode.
>
This sounds really neat !
To me this sound like we may be able to replicate using different
priorities, balancing performance and data integrity. But what do you
mean by "standby mode" ? That PG maý be able to serve as a readonly DB
and replication client at the same time ?
> Slony is a good system now, and it's nice because you can use different
> versions of PostgreSQL. PITR requires that it's the same version.
>
The PITR requirement all makes sense, and I don't like the missing DDL
updates and the fact that Slony is trigger.
> However, if you're working with a payment system or accounting system,
> you may need synchronous replication. With any asynchronous solution
> (Slony or PITR standby), there is a possibility (although not likely) to
> lose *committed* transactions.
>
Hmm, yes but again this have to be balanced with performance, and at the
moment I can live with a replication that is a little behind but, I will
try to keep the overhead down.
> If you do need synchronous replication, consider using two-phase commit
> to prepare transactions on several machines before committing them. This
> ensures that the data will be on multiple machines before committing to
> any of them.
>
Hmm, I saw that feature announced in 8.1, and I am sure it will come in
handy one day, but right now async is acceptable.
/BL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Najib Abi Fadel | 2006-09-22 06:40:56 | Can i switch to the use of persistent connections with my already in use application without worrying ? |
Previous Message | Alain Roger | 2006-09-22 05:58:56 | Backup / export DB |