On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 02:41:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 4. Therefore, I think that we should instead use logical replication, > which might be either synchronous or asynchronous. When you modify > one copy of the data, that change will then be replicated to all other > nodes. If you are OK with eventual consistency, this replication can > be asynchronous, and nodes that are off-line will catch up when they > are on-line. If you are not OK with that, then you must replicate > synchronously to every node before transaction commit; or at least you > must replicate synchronously to every node that is currently on-line. > This presents some challenges: logical decoding currently can't > replicate transactions that are still in process - replication starts > when the transaction commits. Also, we don't have any way for > synchronous replication to wait for multiple nodes. But in theory > those seem like limitations that can be lifted. Also, the GTM needs > to be aware that this stuff is happening, or it will DTWT. That too > seems like a problem that can be solved.
Can you explain why logical replication is better than binary replication for this use-case? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
