On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:00:37 -0500, John Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If it were me, and someone proposed a model where two-way replication > >> was needed, I would tell them to rethink their model. It's broken. > > > > I would respectfully disagree that the requirement for two-way > > replication > > indicates a broken design. > > I agree with your disagreement. This design is present in lots of > non-RDB systems - CVS, IMAP, PDA syncing, etc. It's clearly more > complicated, but can be made to work, and has been many times. I don't > see anything about databases in general, or Postgres specifically, that > indicates it's a bad idea. >
I would suggest whenever changes on the main db caused by sync or immediate update by user, it better to archive the changes into separate table. Archiving is quite simple with creating rule on update or delete table to insert old record to separate table. It will be useful for further reconciliation ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
