From: | Sridhar N Bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Online DW |
Date: | 2016-06-10 16:27:18 |
Message-ID: | CAGuFTBVQs8nWj59VnES+aCeb+K6eQtpYJ+nwg3srkkZND3K2qQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
This is what I feel will give me solution to maintain production
(current+7days) and archive(current+history) without any etl/scheduler
But there is no feature available in any database
Sridhar
Opentext
On 10 Jun 2016 19:03, "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10 June 2016 at 18:56, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2016 2:18 AM, Sridhar N Bamandlapally wrote:
>>
>>> This/These will be performed in Production to clean-up archive which
>>> will not be sync with Archive/DW DB only
>>>
>>> one heads-up is Archive/DW DB may need to build WITHOUT CONSTRAINTS
>>>
>>> May need to introduce ARCHIVE system/tag in pg_hba.conf
>>>
>>
>> there's a whole lot of implied magic here unless you want to get way more
>> specific what these features do, exactly, under all possible conditions.
>
>
> I'd go further than that and say I can't see how something like this could
> possibly work with physical (block based) replication. It's total
> hand-waving.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sridhar N Bamandlapally | 2016-06-10 16:33:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Online DW |
Previous Message | Rakesh Kumar | 2016-06-10 16:26:52 | What is the general opinion on use of tablespaces |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-06-10 16:27:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-10 15:27:53 | Re: Hard to maintain duplication in contain_volatile_functions_not_nextval_walker |