Re: replication in Postgres

From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: replication in Postgres
Date: 2007-11-26 21:15:48
Message-ID: 60sl2sd7y3.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk (Glyn Astill) writes:
> 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?

Well, a "modal approach" is possible - that's what Postgres-R tries to
do.

Of course, once you drop into a mode that "allows slaves to catch up,"
then you have given up on synchronicity, and have fallen back to
asynchronous replication.

If you systematically have a way to do that, then you no longer have a
replication system that can honestly be called "synchronous."

If it's *truly* synchronous, then when nodes fall over, the system
MUST stop accepting transactions.
--
output = reverse("ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
Signs of a Klingon Programmer - 2. "Specifications are for the weak
and timid!"

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Browne 2007-11-26 21:21:17 Re: replication in Postgres
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-11-26 21:04:18 Re: [GENERAL] Empty arrays with ARRAY[]