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!"
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[] |