From: | Sylvain Marechal <marechal(dot)sylvain2(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nick Babadzhanian <nb(at)cobra(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication with non-read-only standby. |
Date: | 2016-07-06 20:00:05 |
Message-ID: | CAJu=pHSxqPNkiwO1g6GHMc+QP8ncCr9MR89yvh_xtHWY9hVLyA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
2016-06-30 15:15 GMT+02:00 Nick Babadzhanian <nb(at)cobra(dot)ru>:
> Setup:
> 2 PostgreSQL servers are geographically spread. The first one is used for
> an application that gathers data. It is connected to the second database
> that is used to process the said data. Connection is not very stable nor is
> it fast, so using Bidirectional replication is not an option. It is OK if
> data is shipped in batches rather than streamed.
>
> Question:
> Is there a way to make the standby server non-read-only, so that it can
> keep getting updates (mostly inserts) from the 'master', but users are able
> to edit the data stored on 'slave'? Is there some alternative solution to
> this?
>
> Regards,
> Nick.
>
> Hi Nick,
sorry for this silly question, but I am not sure to understand why BDR is
not an option.
As far as I know, it was designed to handle such cases.
My 2 cents,
Sylvain
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | arnaud gaboury | 2016-07-06 21:13:40 | Re: Broken after upgrade |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2016-07-06 18:56:51 | Re: Broken after upgrade |