At 12:56 PM 12/1/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
>(Remember, we're talking about what you could do *now*, with 7.1.
>Presumably with 7.2 other options will open.)
Maybe *you* are :) Seriously, I'm thinking out loud about future
possibilities. Putting a lot of work into building up a temporary
solution on top of 7.1 doesn't make a lot of sense, anyone wanting
to work on such things ought to think about 7.2, which presumably will
beta sometime mid-2001 or so???
And I don't think there are 7.1 hacks that are simple ... could be
wrong, though.
>I don't know of any way to synchronously transfer the WAL, currently.
Nope.
>Anyway, I would expect doing it to interfere seriously with performance.
Yep. Anyone here have experience with replication and Oracle or others?
I've heard from one source that setting it up reliabily in Oracle and
getting the switch from the dead to the backup server working properly was
something of a DBA nightmare, but that's true of just about anything in
Oracle. Once it was up, it worked reliably, though (also typical
of Oracle).
>The "wait to log a 'commit' locally until after the remote site acks that
>it got the WAL" is (akin to) the familiar two-phase commit.
Right.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.