On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:30 , Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Fujii Masao wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
It is however async replication so you can loose data commited on the master but not yet replicated to the slaves in case you loose the master
Yes, here is an insufficient point of Slony-I, i think.
Most systems will not permit the committed data to be lost, so use is limited.

Wanna bet?

It is very, very common to have asynchronous replication. I would say the need for synchronous is far more limited (although greater desired).

I would imagine that multi-master synchronous replication would be fairly trivial to implement with 2PC and wal-shipping available, no?

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to