2016-09-09 1:09 GMT+12:00 Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:25 PM, John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com> wrote: > > On 9/6/2016 4:20 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote: > >> > >> If you use slony to replicate, you CAN have 9.2 on the master and 9.4 on > >> the slave. > > > > > > does rackspace support slony? how about amazon dms ? > > > > slony requires configuring replication on each table. if the database > has a > > large complex schema this could take considerable setup effort. > > > > Not really. As of slony 2.2 you can use a regular expression to add > tables or sequences. > > i.e.: > > SET ADD TABLE ( > SET ID=1, > TABLES='public\\.*' > ); > > repeat for sequences. Two commands. I don't consider that considerable > effort. > -- > To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion. > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Slony The main drawback to Slony-I even as a replication system is the *complexity of its setup and administration*. The design of the system, with the database itself being used for queueing row updates, also significantly increases the amount of data writing and I/O done by the DBMS. Also, since Slony-I is asynchronous master-slave, all writes have to be segregated to the master. Additionally, there is a noticeable lag (1-3 seconds) between the master and the slaves which may cause users to have an inconsistent view of the data. So, Slony won't be used by us.
