On 11/14/06, Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Brendan Jurd") writes:
> This seems to be getting rather messy. I wonder if I might not be
> better off just writing AFTER triggers on all the tables I'm
> interested in, which replicate the query to the slave system with
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Brendan Jurd") writes:
> On 11/11/06, Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Let me point out one possible downside to using Slony-I log shipping;
>> it may not be an issue for you, but it's worth observing...
>>
>> Log shipping works via serializing the subscription work do
Brendan Jurd wrote:
Why *does* Slony require a bi-directional connection to the
subscriber? The data is travelling in one direction only ... what
needs to come back the other way?
So the slave can say "yes I got that data you can remove it from my TODO
list" ?
This seems to be getting rat
On 11/11/06, Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me point out one possible downside to using Slony-I log shipping;
it may not be an issue for you, but it's worth observing...
Log shipping works via serializing the subscription work done on a
subscriber to files. Thus, you MUST have at l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Brendan Jurd") writes:
> On 11/11/06, Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > "Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > So, my question for the list is: is Slony + log shipping the direction
>> > > I should be
On 11/11/06, Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, my question for the list is: is Slony + log shipping the direction
> > I should be investigating, or is there something else out that I ou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes:
> Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Those are two different methods: you'd use one or the other, not both.
>
>> Slony has its own log shipping, I think that was what he was referring
>> to.
>
> O
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Those are two different methods: you'd use one or the other, not both.
>
> > Slony has its own log shipping, I think that was what he was refe
Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Those are two different methods: you'd use one or the other, not both.
> Slony has its own log shipping, I think that was what he was referring
> to.
Oh, OK, I was thinking of the trigger-driven ver
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, my question for the list is: is Slony + log shipping the direction
> > I should be investigating, or is there something else out that I ought
> > to consider?
>
> Those are two different methods
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, my question for the list is: is Slony + log shipping the direction
> I should be investigating, or is there something else out that I ought
> to consider?
Those are two different methods: you'd use one or the other, not both.
Slony-I is much the mo
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 06:34 +1100, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> So, my question for the list is: is Slony + log shipping the direction
> I should be investigating, or is there something else out that I ought
> to consider? My understanding of WAL-based replication is that the
This is certainly the dire
Hi all,
Yes, it's yet another request for advice on replicating pgsql. I have
been doing some research on this lately, and so far I am getting the
impression that what I want is Slony + log shipping. The scenario is:
* One master postgres database on the internal, which is being
frequently upd
13 matches
Mail list logo
