reinoud@xs4all.nl (Reinoud van Leeuwen) writes:
> Well as I read back the thread I see 2 different approaches to
> replication:
> ...
> I can think of some scenarios where I would definitely want to
> *choose* one of the options.
Yes. IIRC, it looks to be possible to support a form of async
replication using the Postgres-R approach: you allow the cluster
to break apart when communications fail, and then rejoin when
your link comes back to life. (This can work in principle, how
close it is to reality is another question; but the rejoin operation
is the same as crash recovery, so you have to have it anyway.)
So this seems to me to allow getting most of the benefits of the async
approach. OTOH it is difficult to see how to go the other way: getting
the benefits of a synchronous solution atop a basically-async
implementation doesn't seem like it can work.
regards, tom lane