| From: | AgentM <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication |
| Date: | 2006-08-21 15:33:21 |
| Message-ID: | AB522C3C-89E5-4CBF-A38C-F8C8B0031036@themactionfaction.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:30 , Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>> It is however async replication so you can loose data commited on
>>> the
>>> master but not yet replicated to the slaves in case you loose the
>>> master
>>> completely.
>> Yes, here is an insufficient point of Slony-I, i think.
>> Most systems will not permit the committed data to be lost, so use
>> is limited.
>
> Wanna bet?
>
> It is very, very common to have asynchronous replication. I would
> say the need for synchronous is far more limited (although greater
> desired).
I would imagine that multi-master synchronous replication would be
fairly trivial to implement with 2PC and wal-shipping available, no?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-08-21 15:40:16 | Re: Replication |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-08-21 15:13:58 | Re: PostgreSQL on 64 bit Linux |