On Wed, August 6, 2008 11:06 pm, Decibel! wrote: > Call me paranoid, but I don't trust our users to not modify data on > our slaves. Currently I've got a trigger that I've applied that > prevents this, but the solution is an ugly hack, and of course fights > with londiste's idea of how triggers should work. > > So one thing I'd like is to have londiste normally add triggers to > slaves to prevent updates. Are there any cases anyone can think of > where updates *should* be allowed?
A clean way of achieving this is to use PgPool on all the slaves to transparently redirect UPDATES/DELETES/INSERTS to the master. Regards Henry _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
