Re: AW: AW: Postgres Replication
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: AW: AW: Postgres Replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16439.992389158@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: AW: AW: Postgres Replication (reinoud@xs4all.nl (Reinoud van Leeuwen)) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: