John Cheng wrote: > Congrats on the 9.0 release of PostgreSQL. One of the features I am really > interested in is the built-in binary replication. > > Our production environment has been using PostgreSQL for more than 5 years > (since this project started). We have been using Slony-I as our replication > mechanism. I am interested to find out the pros and cons of Slony vs the > built-in replication in 9.0. Based on what I understand: > > * Slony has a higher overhead than the binary replication in 9.0 > * When using Slony, schema change must be applied via slonik (in most cases) > * Unfortunately, IMO it is easy to make a mistake when applying schema > changes in Slony, fortunately, it is easy to drop and recreate the > replication sets > * Slony is an asynchronous replication mechanism > * Slony allows you to replication some tables, while ignoring others > > * PostgreSQL 9.0 with hot standby & streaming replication is an asynchronous > replication mechanism > * Overhead is low compared to Slony > > Are there some cases where it is better to use Slony, for example, when you > must specifically exclude tables from replication? I believe our system will > be better off using the built-in replication mechanism of 9.0, and I am > guessing most people will be in the same boat.
You have summarized the differences well. Streaming replication has lower overhread, but doesn't allow per-table granularity or allow replication between different versions of Postgres. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
