On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:13:32AM +0100, Jasmin Dizdarevic wrote:
>> My idea was the one, that john described: DML and DDL are done on the small
>> box and reporting on the "big mama" with streaming replication and hot
>> stand-by enabled. the only problem is that we use temp tables for reporting
>> purposes. i hope that the query duration impact with not using temp tables
>> will be equalized through running dml/ddl on the small box.
>
> By the way, despite my flip comment, it is entirely possible that what
> you need would be better handled by one of the other replication
> systems. Slony is actually well-suited to this sort of thing, despite
> the overhead that it imposes. This is a matter of trade-offs, and you
> might want to think about different roles for different boxes --
> especially since hardware is so cheap these days.
>
Yeah, it's possible one of the async master-master systems like
bucardo or rubyrep would also fit his needs. There are options here,
just no full on pony/unicorn/pegasus mix like everyone hopes for.
Oh, I guess if someone is looking to fund/help development of such a
thing, it might be worth pointing people to Postgres-XC
(http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Postgres-XC). It's got a ways to go,
but they are at least trying.
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
hiring: l42.org/Lg