One of the main considerations per Hot Standby vs SLONY is replication
scope. With Hot Standby you get everything that occurs in the cluster,
across all databases. With SLONY you are limited to at most a single
database per "SLONY Cluster", and you can define replication sets which
only contain a sub-set of the tables in the database. So, IMHO I'd go
with Hot Standby if I wanted to replicate the full cluster and SLONY if
I wanted to "slice & dice" tables and target slaves (i.e. replicate all
tables for a single db to slave 1, only 50 tables to slave 2, etc...)
--hope this helps
/Kevin
Hi,
Il 09/02/11 01:34, Rangi, Jai ha scritto:
Hello,
I am looking for a replication solution for PG 9.x. Idea is to have
one master replication server and multiple (around 20) slave servers
read only. I see PG 9 has inbuilt Streaming replication. Is this the
best replication solution. How about slony? Which option will keep
the slave nodes in closest sync to master and which is more stable.
With PostgreSQL 9.0 in terms of builtin replication you can take
advantage of Hot Standby based on either WAL shipping or on Streaming
Replication.I would personally stick with builtin solutions if you
plan to have full replicas of your databases, even in terms of
maintenance and upgrades later on (in the long term). Some tools,
including replication manager (repmgr) are coming out in order to
manage HA clusters (for more info:
http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/en/2011/01/easier-postgresql-90-clusters.html).
Cheers,
Gabriele
--
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it |www.2ndQuadrant.it
