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
completely.
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).
Joshua D. Drake
IMO, log-based replication is needed also for PostgreSQL just like
MySQL.
Well, I had misunderstood MySQL. Its replication is also asynchronous.
regards;
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
