On Monday 30 November 2009 10:32:50 Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > On Monday 30 November 2009 03:57:11 Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > >> Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at> wrote: > >>> we tried to discuss on a lower level what should be needed > >>> for a partial replication based on streaming replication. > >> > >> We need to discuss a "partial recovery" before the partial replication. > > > > If you do the filtering on the sending side you dont actually need > > partial recover in the sense that you filter in the rmgr or similar. > > > > Or do I miss something? > > the question is if filtering on the sending side is actually the "right > thing" to do. > It increases the overhead and the complexity on the master, especially > if you think about different (partial) replication agreements for > different slaves and it might also be hard to integrate with the planned > sync/async modes. > On the other hand if you filter on the master you might be able to avoid > a lot of network traffic du to filtered wal records. > I think for a first step it might make more sense to look into doing the > filtering on the receiving side and look into actual integration with SR > at a later stage. I think filtering on the receiving side is harder by many degrees because you don't have an up 2 date copy of the catalog. I cant think of a design that does not impose severe constraints on catalog and especially replication settings to implement on the receiving side.
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
