On Wednesday 29 Jan 2003 12:09 am, you wrote:
> jhihn1 <jhihn1@umbc.edu> writes:
> > It would make replication so simple and fast.
>
> No it wouldn't; as I've been trying to explain to you, there are a lot
> of reasons why rsync'ing a database won't work. Fixing a few of them
> doesn't produce a working solution. Nor are we going to contort the
> system design to make a fundamentally wrongheaded approach to
> replication work. rsync is just not the basis of a workable solution,
> because it doesn't and can't know anything about the database state or
> the semantics of the different files in the database.
That makes me wonder. How hard it is to create async replication based on WAL,
assuming there is not one already.
Create a daemon that watches WAL dir. As soon as a new file is created, old
file is copied at someplace else, which can also be dropped into WAL dir. of
another installation and it will sync up.
Assumming WAL naming notation/names can be tweaked by external program, is it
correct idea of async notation? It should not be that hard to come up with
such a daemon.
Shridhar
P.S. Tom, sorry for personal mail. I booted into BSD and KMail is bit
different than pegasus.. Sorry!