On Mar 25, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
This obviously does not work in real time, but it may be useful. It
does
not require a lot of additional space to do this because of the ZFS
copy-on-write implementation.
But what benefit does it give you if you're pounding on the same set
of
Chris Browne wrote:
> I seem to recall there being a relevant Google Summer of Code project
> about this, last year.
> I do not recall how far it got. It obviously didn't make it into 8.3
> ;-)!
Some parts of it did -- for example we got "read-only transactions"
which were a step towards that g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keaton Adams) writes:
> That is an interesting question. If our organization were to help fund the
> development of such a feature, would that be something taken into
> consideration by the development team?
I seem to recall there being a relevant Google Summer of Code project
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:34AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> against. People who are using the current warm-standby code are already
> grappling with issues like how to coordinate master/slave failover
> (including my second favorite acronym, STONITH for "shoot the other node
> in the head").
Le mercredi 26 mars 2008, Greg Smith a écrit :
> (My favorite acronym is TLA)
Hehe :)
I'd vote for A...
--
dim
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Our organization is looking for a hot-standby option for PostgreSQL that
uses the WAL (transaction) data to keep the standby current and also allows
the standby to be read-only accessible for reporting. We have implemented
WAL shipping through a set of scripts we developed and that works well to
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 17:53 -0600, Keaton Adams wrote:
> That is an interesting question. If our organization were to help fund the
> development of such a feature, would that be something taken into
> consideration by the development team?
Yes. Many of my major projects have been funded that wa
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote:
I know very little about postgreSQL internals but it would be great if:
- WAL files could be applied while the standby server is operational / allow
read-only queries
This is the part that requires modifying PostgreSQL, and that progress was
mad
] On Behalf Of Keaton Adams
Sent: March 25, 2008 4:29 PM
To: Richard Broersma; salman
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Replication with read-only access to
standby DB
But will that stand-by replication provide for a read-only slave?
On 3/25/08 2:26 PM, "Richar
Similar case has been already happened.
For example, I have propsed to implement WITH RECURSIVE clause and the
work is supported by Sumitomo Electric Information Systems Co.,
Ltd. (http://www.sei-info.co.jp/) and SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
(http://www.sraoss.co.jp).
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
That is an interesting question. If our organization were to help fund the
development of such a feature, would that be something taken into
consideration by the development team?
-Keaton
On 3/25/08 4:32 PM, "Richard Broersma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Simo
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Keaton Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our organization is looking for a hot-standby option for PostgreSQL that
> uses the WAL (transaction) data to keep the standby current and also allows
> the standby to be read-only accessible for reporting. We have implemen
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 14:11 -0600, Keaton Adams wrote:
> Some funding would help that move forwards. If you or others would
> consider that, it would help, even if just to provide the seed for
> additional contributors.
That
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 14:11 -0600, Keaton Adams wrote:
> “Oracle Active Data Guard enables a physical standby database to be
> open for read-only access – for reporting, simple or complex queries –
> while changes from the production database are being applied to it.
> This means any operation tha
It is close, but has limitations that will be problematic for our
environment, such as:
Replicator will not replicate the schema. You must restore your schema to th
e slaves from the master before you begin replication.
Replicator can only replicate one database. If you have multiple databases y
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 14:11 -0600, Keaton Adams wrote:
> “All queries reading from the physical replica execute in real-time,
> and return current results. A Data Guard configuration consists of
> one production (or primary) database and up to nine standby
> databases. A standby database is initi
But will that stand-by replication provide for a read-only slave?
On 3/25/08 2:26 PM, "Richard Broersma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:17 PM, salman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IIRC, it was mentioned previously in one posting that this a TODO for a
>> future version of
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:17 PM, salman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, it was mentioned previously in one posting that this a TODO for a
> future version of postgres but not something that's expected soon.
>
> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is what I saw on the TODO list:
Write-A
Keaton Adams wrote:
Our organization is looking for a hot-standby option for PostgreSQL that
uses the WAL (transaction) data to keep the standby current and also allows
the standby to be read-only accessible for reporting. We have implemented
WAL shipping through a set of scripts we developed
Our organization is looking for a hot-standby option for PostgreSQL that
uses the WAL (transaction) data to keep the standby current and also allows
the standby to be read-only accessible for reporting. We have implemented
WAL shipping through a set of scripts we developed and that works well to
20 matches
Mail list logo
