With no new additions submitted today, I have moved my text into our
SGML documentation:


Please let me know what additional changes are needed.


bruce wrote:
> Richard Troy wrote:
> > 
> > > Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:
> > >
> > >     ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
> > >
> > 
> > ...Read the document, as promissed...
> > 
> > First paragraph, "(fail over)" is inconsistent with title, "failover", as
> > are other spots throughout the document. The whole document should be
> > consistent and I vote for "failover" and not "fail over."
> OK.  Fixed to "failover"
> > Fourth paragraph, "This "sync problem" is the fundamental difficulty for
> > servers working together"; "Sync problem" hasn't been defined. Actually,
> > you're talking about the consistent attribute of the "acid" properties of
> > all competent databases: Atomic, Consistency, Isolation, and Durability.
> > At least define the term you are using - probably most easily done in the
> > preceeding paragraph.
> OK, "sync problem" term removed, and spelled out fully.
> > The fifth paragraph needs a lot more help, I think. Howabout this
> > alternative:
> > 
> > So called "two phaised commit" was developed as a strategy in which two or
> > more databases are updated simultaneously and none of the data is
> > committed until all are committed. This guarantees consistency between the
> > databases with all propagation delay being absorbed by the writer at write
> > time. There are times when this propagation delay is large, so sometimes
> > alternatives are worked out which we'll call here "asynchronous updates,"
> > however, in these cases, there is always a window of time in which some
> > transaction can be lost should a failure occurr. For this reason,
> > asynchronous updates are only used when the possibility of such losses is
> > acceptible.
> I have modified the paragraph to use some of your terms.
> > Paragraphs six through to "shared disk failover" seem very awkward to me.
> > I don't like them at all.
> > 
> > "Shared disk failover" has nothing to do with "the sync problem" as it's
> > not a multiple-database solution. It's an uptime, "24 X 7 X 365" issue.
> > Further, it also has nothing to do with disk arrays, though it is often
> > used with RAID to help avoid disk based corruption problems.
> Yes, please see updated version.  I removed the sync problem term from
> there.
> > The point about Warm Standby needs to include a warning about WAL that it
> > MUST be sensitive to the semantics of the database design or else it's
> > fatally flawed. I'm talking about "referential integrety". That is to say,
> > it's inappropriate to capture updates on a table by table basis, as some
> > such systems do, (I have no idea what's done by anyone in the PG world on
> > this right now) because an update to one table (esp. inserts) very often
> > go hand in glove with updates in other tables and to get one without the
> > other can corrupt a database.
> We don't have that problem.  We recover only full transactions.
> > The description of "Continuously running replication server" should
> > include the critical caveat - repeated if you think it's already said
> > elsewhere - that it is ONLY suitable for applications in which a loss of
> > (missing) update data doesn't matter. For example, an airline reservation
> > system would be an inappropriate application for such a "solution" because
> > what seats are available cannot be guaranteed to be correct.
> I have added note about data loss for the Slony item.
> > Regarding data partitioning, I strongly disagree with the opening sentence
> > in that it doesn't split a database into sets, it splits tables into sets.
> OK, changed.
> > Data partitioning is often done within a single database on a single
> > server and therefore, as a concept, has nothing whatsoever to do with
> > different servers. Similarly, the second paragraph of this section is
> Uh, why would someone split things up like that on a single server?
> > problematic. Please define your term first, then talk about some
> > implementations - this is muddying the water. Further, there are both
> > vertical and horizontal partitioning - you mention neither - and each has
> > its own distinct uses. If partitioning is mentioned, it should be more
> > complete.
> Uh, what exactly needs to be defined.
> > Next, Query Broadcast Load Balancing... also needs a lot of work. First,
> > it's foremost in my memory that sending read queries everywhere and
> > returning the first result set back is a key way to improve application
> > performance at the cost of additional load on other systems - I guess
> > that's not at all what the document is after here, but it's a worthy part
> > of a dialogue on broadcasting queries. In other words, this has more parts
> > to it than just what the document now entertains. Secondly, the document
> Uh, do we want to go into that here?  I guess I could.
> > doesn't address _at_all_ whether this is a two-phaise-commit environment
> > or not. If not, how are updates managed? If each server operates
> > independently and one of them fails, what do you do then? How do you know
> > _any_ server got an insert/update? ...  Each server _can't_ operate
> > independently unless the application does its own insert/update commits to
> > every one of them - and that can't be fast, nor does it load balance,
> > though it may contribute to superior uptime performance by the
> > application.
> I think having the application middle layer do the commits is how it
> works now.  Can someone explain how pgpool works, or should we mention
> how two-phase commit has to be done here?  pgpool2 has additional
> features.
> > Next up; I'm not aware of any current products or projects that provide
> > parallel query execution, though Informix might - I can ask a colleague or
> > two. Either way, it's probably best to simply define the term (perhaps in
> > a little more detail), and not mention solutions - they change with time
> > anyway.
> Actually, Bizgres MPP, based on PostgreSQL, does this, but mostly for
> read-only queries.
> > While I've never used Oracle's clustering tools, I've read up on them and
> > have customers who use them, and I think this description of Oracle
> > clustering is a mis-read on what the Oracle system actually does. A check
> > with a true Oracle clustering expert is in order here.
> OK, would someone please comment?
> > Hope this helps. If asked, I'm willing to (re)write some of the bits
> > discussed above.
> Yes, please review the URL and let me know what else to change.  Thanks.
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
>   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to