On 16 October 2012 15:26, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
This means that the transition time from the existing, trigger based
approach to the new WAL based mechanism will see both technologies in
parallel, which is no small thing to support.
So, you're talking about a shim between the two
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 16 October 2012 15:26, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
This means that the transition time from the existing, trigger based
approach to the new WAL based mechanism will see both technologies in
parallel, which
On 18 October 2012 16:18, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com wrote:
A shim adds complexity, but retains the upgrade across versions
use case, and reduces the need to keep supporting elder versions of
Slony.
Right. Upgrading across major versions is likely to continue to remain
a very
On 10/15/2012 4:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Jan spoke at length at PgCon, for all to hear, that what we are
building is a much better way than the trigger logging approach Slony
uses. I don't take that as carte blanche for approval of everything
being done, but its going in the right direction
On 10/15/2012 3:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:18:57 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely
any other replication system could use it.
I
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 09:57:19AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 04:54:20 AM Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
IMHO that's a good thing, and I'd hope this new logical replication to
live
On Monday, October 15, 2012 08:19:54 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 09:57:19AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 04:54:20 AM Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
IMHO that's a
On 10/11/2012 01:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 09:15:47 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
...
If the only meaningful advantage is reducing the amount of WAL written,
I can't help thinking that we should just try to address that in the
existing solutions, even if it seems
On Monday, October 15, 2012 08:38:07 PM Hannu Krosing wrote:
On 10/11/2012 01:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 09:15:47 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
...
If the only meaningful advantage is reducing the amount of WAL written,
I can't help thinking that we should
On 10/15/2012 04:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
IMHO that's a good thing, and I'd hope this new logical replication to live
outside core as well, as much as possible. But whether or not something is
in core is just a
On 10/15/2012 08:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 08:38:07 PM Hannu Krosing wrote:
On 10/11/2012 01:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 09:15:47 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
...
If the only meaningful advantage is reducing the amount of WAL written,
On 10/15/2012 04:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
PS. I'd love to see a basic Slony plugin for this, for example, to see how
much extra code on top of the posted patches you need to write in a plugin
like that to make it functional. I'm worried that it's a lot..
I agree. I would go so far as to say
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely
any other replication system could use it.
I don't accept that. Clearly there is a circular dependency, and
someone has to go first - why should the Slony guys
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely
any other replication system could use it.
I don't accept that. Clearly there
On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:18:57 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely
any other replication system could use it.
I don't accept that. Clearly there is a circular
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely
any other replication system could
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely
any other replication system could use it.
I don't accept that. Clearly there
On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:03:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use
On 15 October 2012 21:03, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use
On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:08:28 PM Christopher Browne wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely
any other
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:08:28 PM Christopher Browne wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:13:14 AM Christopher Browne wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:08:28 PM Christopher Browne wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 12-10-15 04:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Well, as a crosscheck, could you list your requirements?
Do you need anything more than outputting data in a format compatible to whats
stored in sl_log_*? You wouldn't have sl_actionseq, everything else should be
there (Well, you would need to do
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
IMHO that's a good thing, and I'd hope this new logical replication to live
outside core as well, as much as possible. But whether or not something is
in core is just a political decision, not a reason to
On 22.09.2012 20:00, Andres Freund wrote:
[[basic-schema]]
.Architecture Schema
[ditaa]
--
Traditional Stuff
+-+-+-+-++
| Backend | Backend | Backend | Autovac | ...|
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 09:15:47 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 22.09.2012 20:00, Andres Freund wrote:
[[basic-schema]]
.Architecture Schema
[ditaa]
-
-
Traditional Stuff
Andres, nice job on the writeup.
I think one aspect you are missing is that there must be some way for
the multi-masters to
re-stabilize their data sets and quantify any data loss. You cannot do
this without
some replication intelligence in each row of each table so that no
matter how
27 matches
Mail list logo
