On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Sim Zacks <sim(at)compulab(dot)co(dot)il> wrote:
> I have heard good things about Bucardo, though I haven't tried it myself
> yet. I was warned that it would be risky to have 2 masters that have the
> same tables modified in both because of issues such as delayed sync, race
> conditions and other such goodies that may corrupt the meaning of the data.
Just to be clear and fair to Bucardo, I would add a few points.
All multi-master replication solutions that use an optimistic
mechanism require "conflict resolution" cases and code. This is the
same with SQLServer and Oracle etc.. Referring to a well known problem
as a race condition seems to introduce doubt and fear into a situation
that is well understood. Bucardo does offer hooks for conflict
resolution to allow you to program around the issues.
So if I felt that multi-master replication was the right way to go for
a solution, Bucardo is a good choice.
Just to add other info: if multi-master replication uses pessimistic
coherence, then the coherence mechanism can also be a source of
contention and/or cause the need for alternative kinds of conflict
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: raghu ram||Date: 2011-05-03 10:54:34|
|Subject: Can we Flush the Postgres Shared Memory ?|
|Previous:||From: Karsten Hilbert||Date: 2011-05-03 08:12:17|
|Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys|