On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:30 , Joshua D. Drake wrote:
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).
I would imagine that multi-master synchronous replication would be
fairly trivial to implement with 2PC and wal-shipping available, no?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
