| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: WAL feature |
| Date: | 2001-04-28 00:41:43 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D33E2@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yep, WAL collects all database changes into one file. Easy to see how
> some other host trying to replication a different host would find the
> WAL contents valuable.
Unfortunately, slave database(s) should be on the same platform
(hardware+OS) to be able to use information about *physical*
changes in data files. Also, this would be still *async* replication.
Maybe faster than rserv, maybe with less space requirements (no rserv'
log table), but maybe not.
I believe that making efforts to implement (bi-directional) *sync*
replication would be more valuable.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-04-28 00:44:39 | Re: WAL feature |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2001-04-28 00:41:28 | RE: WAL feature |