| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |
| Date: | 2015-09-03 03:02:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Kut2-W2f4k+Cyk+k_9q8kSprtBAuBmawQnm7B5Jf7ong@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 07:50:25PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> > >Can you explain why logical replication is better than binary
> > >replication for this use-case?
> > >
> >
> > Selectivity?
>
> I was assuming you would just create identical slaves to handle failure,
> rather than moving selected data around.
>
Yes, I also think so, otherwise when the shard goes down and it's replica
has to take the place of shard, it will take more time to make replica
available as it won't have all the data as original shard had.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-09-03 03:45:34 | Re: GIN pending clean up is not interruptable |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-09-03 03:01:31 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |