Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On 19.04.2016 15:56, Craig Ringer wrote: On 18 April 2016 at 16:28, Konstantin Knizhnik mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote: I intend to make the same split in pglogical its self - a receiver and apply worker split. Though my intent is to have them communicate via a shared m

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On 18 April 2016 at 16:28, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > I intend to make the same split in pglogical its self - a receiver and > apply worker split. Though my intent is to have them communicate via a > shared memory segment until/unless the apply worker gets too far behind and > spills to disk.

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

Hi, Thank you for your response. On 17.04.2016 15:30, Craig Ringer wrote: I intend to make the same split in pglogical its self - a receiver and apply worker split. Though my intent is to have them communicate via a shared memory segment until/unless the apply worker gets too far behind and sp

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On 14 April 2016 at 17:11, Moreno Andreo wrote: > All databases that have to be replicated have a flag in the app > configuration, and the replication config is set up, for each database and > each site, when the first synchronization is made, so we could spawn a > process per database and repli

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On 14 April 2016 at 17:14, konstantin knizhnik wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2016, at 8:41 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 1 April 2016 at 19:50, Konstantin Knizhnik > wrote: > > Right now the main problem is parallel apply: we need to apply changes >> concurrently to avoid unintended dependencies causin

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On 10 April 2016 at 22:48, Dorian Hoxha wrote: > Postgres-XL has no highavailibility > Postgres-XL 9.5 has had lots of additional work put in, HA being one of those areas. -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Supp

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On Apr 14, 2016, at 8:41 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 1 April 2016 at 19:50, Konstantin Knizhnik > wrote: > > Right now the main problem is parallel apply: we need to apply changes > concurrently to avoid unintended dependencies causing deadlocks and provide > reasonable performance. > > Ho

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

Il 14/04/2016 07:45, Craig Ringer ha scritto: On 2 April 2016 at 02:15, Moreno Andreo wrote:   Actually we have to improve what our replicator is doing:

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On 2 April 2016 at 02:15, Moreno Andreo wrote: > Actually we have to improve what our replicator is doing: it's only > replicating the single user's database. The improvement should that we can > put it on the "server" (in some cases there are groups of users sharing a > dedicated server) and, g

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On 1 April 2016 at 19:50, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Right now the main problem is parallel apply: we need to apply changes > concurrently to avoid unintended dependencies causing deadlocks and provide > reasonable performance. > How do you intend to approach that? You should be able to do para

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

@Konstantin 1. It's ok in my cases. 2. Not required in my cases. 3. Just require users to use different servers for now I think. Sometimes(always?) users can be greedy with feature requests. 4. I want magically consistency + failover (I can instruct the client to retry all masters). Good-cluster i

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

Il 01/04/2016 17:22, Joshua D. Drake ha scritto: On 04/01/2016 04:50 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: There are also some minor technical issues which lead us to making few changes in pglogical code but we tried to do our best to keep original versions unchanged, so we can switch to public versio

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On 04/01/2016 04:50 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: There are also some minor technical issues which lead us to making few changes in pglogical code but we tried to do our best to keep original versions unchanged, so we can switch to public version in future. It seems the better solution for al

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

Hi Simon, Yes, we will distributed all our code under PostgreSQL license. Right now we are using copy of pglogical_output plugin + receiver part written based on BDR code (just because when we started work on multimaster pglogical plugin was not released). We have plans to eliminate copies of p

Re: [GENERAL] Multimaster

On 1 April 2016 at 11:33, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > Our company PostgresPRO is now developing multimaster for Postgres, some > analogue of MySQL Galera. > It is based on logical replication and pglogical plugin from 2ndQuandrant > and uses distributed transaction manager. > Hi Konstantin, I

[GENERAL] Multimaster

Hi, Our company PostgresPRO is now developing multimaster for Postgres, some analogue of MySQL Galera. It is based on logical replication and pglogical plugin from 2ndQuandrand and uses distributed transaction manager. The main differences of multimaster from standard PostgreSQL streaming repl

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 07:47:04PM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote: > For example, part of the point of having validations declared on the > model is so that you can raise user-friendly errors (and pipe them > through gettext for localization) such as "Your password must be at > least 4 characters l

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Alexander Staubo írta: On 6/4/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:37:42AM +0200, PFC wrote: > NULL usually means "unknown" or "not applicable" Aaaargh! No, it doesn't. It means NULL. Nothing else. If it meant unknown or not applicable or anything else,

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Aaaargh! No, it doesn't. It means NULL. Nothing else. Well, x = UNKNOWN doesn't make any sense... the answer is UNKNOWN. x IS UNKNOWN does make sense, the answer is true or false. Replace UNKNOWN with NULL... Actually it means what the DBA wants it to mean (which opens the doo

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 03:38:01PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote: > Well, a strict "unknown" is fine - so long as it means just that. > How tall is Andrew? Unknown > How tall is Richard? Unknown > Are Andrew and Richard the same height? Unknown > > The problem is the slippery-slope from "unkno

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/4/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:37:42AM +0200, PFC wrote: > NULL usually means "unknown" or "not applicable" Aaaargh! No, it doesn't. It means NULL. Nothing else. If it meant unknown or not applicable or anything else, then SELECT * F

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Ian Harding wrote: The hazard with doing stuff like that is some joker could name their kid Billy NMN Simpson. Or this http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/noplate.asp That settles it; I'm getting custom plates with NULL on them just to see if it makes it impossible for me to

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:37:42AM +0200, PFC wrote: NULL usually means "unknown" or "not applicable" Aaaargh! No, it doesn't. It means NULL. Nothing else. If it meant unknown or not applicable or anything else, then SELECT * FROM nulltbl a, othernulltbl

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

At 12:37 AM +0200 6/4/07, PFC wrote: Yeah, it is awful ;^) However the existing system is equally awful because there is no way to enter NULL! Consider this form : First name :Edgar Middle name : J. Last name : Hoover Now, if someone has no middle name, like "John Smith", should we

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/3/07, PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, it is awful ;^) However the existing system is equally awful > because there is no way to enter NULL! Consider this form : First name :Edgar Middle name : J. Last name : Hoover Now, if someone has no middle name, like "John Smith",

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:37:42AM +0200, PFC wrote: > NULL usually means "unknown" or "not applicable" Aaaargh! No, it doesn't. It means NULL. Nothing else. If it meant unknown or not applicable or anything else, then SELECT * FROM nulltbl a, othernulltbl b WHERE a

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/4/07, Tino Wildenhain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Did you have a look at BizgresMPP? Especially for your shared-nothing approach it seems to be a better solution then just replicating everything. I had completely forgotten about that one. Bizgres.org seems down at the moment, but looking a

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Alexander Staubo schrieb: On 6/1/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: These are all different solutions to different problems, so it's not surprising that they look different. This was the reason I asked, "What is the problem you are trying to solve?" You mean aside from the obvious

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 00:51 +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote: > True, and when they overlap you tend to want to describe the > validation errors in one place, not two -- either the database or the > app, not both. Relational databases have traditionally argued that > these rules should be in the forme

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/4/07, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 22:54 +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote: > I agree with you and I don't; as it stands now, it's too hard to > implement validation in the database alone, for the reasons I stated > earlier. But I would love for it to be possible,

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Yeah, it is awful ;^) However the existing system is equally awful because there is no way to enter NULL! Consider this form : First name :Edgar Middle name : J. Last name : Hoover Now, if someone has no middle name, like "John Smith", should we use NULL or "" for the middle nam

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 22:54 +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote: > I agree with you and I don't; as it stands now, it's too hard to > implement validation in the database alone, for the reasons I stated > earlier. But I would love for it to be possible, so that I can be sure > that not even plain SQL can

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/3/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For example, part of the point of having validations declared on the > model is so that you can raise user-friendly errors (and pipe them > through gettext for localization) such as "Your password must be at > least 4 characters long

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/3/07, Ian Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/3/07, Alexander Staubo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your patch is awful because it would mean there was no way to enter an > empty string in the database. A one-character string containing a > single space is not an empty string. Yeah, it is

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 07:47:04PM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote: > The creator of Rails is not the only developer working on Rails. There > are Rails developers who disagree with him on these issues, and "his > disciples" does not equate "the community". On the other hand, I admit > that this mind

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/3/07, Alexander Staubo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/3/07, Ian Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > An empty string is not null! Null means the value is missing, which is > > clearly not the case here. I would say Rails is exactly in the right > > here. When an HTML form is posted, empty

Re: NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/3/07, Ian Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An empty string is not null! Null means the value is missing, which is > clearly not the case here. I would say Rails is exactly in the right > here. When an HTML form is posted, empty input boxes are declared as > empty strings, which what the

NULLS and User Input WAS Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

An empty string is not null! Null means the value is missing, which is clearly not the case here. I would say Rails is exactly in the right here. When an HTML form is posted, empty input boxes are declared as empty strings, which what the user entered. The problem is not with Rails/ActiveRecord b

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/2/07, Alexander Staubo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/2/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know if it's a general problem, but I've been involved in a > using rails and it appears to have it's own way of declaring the > database. It presumes to handle referentia

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/3/07, Ian Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rails propaganda explicitly proposes not "repeating yourself" and [...] The creator of RoR explicitly discourages use of RI, rules, triggers, etc in the database as unnecessary. His disciples take this as gospel. The creator of Rails is not t

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

PFC wrote: Have you looked at raidb? http://c-jdbc.objectweb.org. Narrow niche, but if it happens to be the one you are in, then it's an option. I took a quick look at the user's page, and both of them were using PostgreSQL. I just love those Java guys. The world starts and ends

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/2/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't know if it's a general problem, but I've been involved in a using rails and it appears to have it's own way of declaring the database. It presumes to handle referential integrity and uniqueness in the application code (!). I t

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Alexander Staubo wrote: On 6/2/07, Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Have you looked at raidb? http://c-jdbc.objectweb.org. Narrow niche, but if it happens to be the one you are in, then it's an option. I took a quick look at the user's page, and both of them were using PostgreSQL. L

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 02:27:06AM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote: > >What you are basically saying below is... web 2.0 developers such as > >rails developers have so fundamentally broken the way it is supposed to > >be done, we should too... > > I don't know if I said that, but I would love to hea

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Have you looked at raidb? http://c-jdbc.objectweb.org. Narrow niche, but if it happens to be the one you are in, then it's an option. I took a quick look at the user's page, and both of them were using PostgreSQL. I just love those Java guys. The world starts and ends wit

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/1/07, Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There would be *some* scalability gains to be had, but the primary reason for looking for multimaster replication is that you need high availability so badly that you are willing to give up performance to get it. ...dependent on some specific d

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/2/07, Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Have you looked at raidb? http://c-jdbc.objectweb.org. Narrow niche, but if it happens to be the one you are in, then it's an option. I took a quick look at the user's page, and both of them were using PostgreSQL. Looked at it briefly. C-JD

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On 6/1/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alexander Staubo wrote: > You mean aside from the obvious one, scalability? Multimaster doesn't give you scalability (at least not like a lot of people think it does). That depends on your particular definition of multimaster. Databases a

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Alexander Staubo wrote: As it stands today, horizontally partitioning a database into multiple separate "shards" is incredibly invasive on the application architecture, and typically relies on brittle and non-obvious hacks such as configuring sequence generators with staggered starting numbers,

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Alexander Staubo") writes: > On 6/1/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> These are all different solutions to different problems, so it's not >> surprising that they look different. This was the reason I asked, >> "What is the problem you are trying to solve?" > >

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: What you are basically saying below is... web 2.0 developers such as rails developers have so fundamentally broken the way it is supposed to be done, we should too... I don't know that's all there is to it

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > What you are basically saying below is... web 2.0 developers such as > rails developers have so fundamentally broken the way it is supposed to > be done, we should too... I don't know that's all there is to it. After all, we sup

Re: [GENERAL] multimaster

Alexander Staubo wrote: On 6/1/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: These are all different solutions to different problems, so it's not surprising that they look different. This was the reason I asked, "What is the problem you are trying to solve?" You mean aside from the obvious o