Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Hi, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: i contacted the company some time ago, and the information i got was that their product is based on query-replication. Yes, AFAIK, their solution is two phase commit based, like Sequoia. Regards Markus ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Hi, On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 12:14 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: i contacted the company some time ago, and the information i got was that their product is based on query-replication. Yes, AFAIK, their solution is two phase commit based, like Sequoia. I thought it was PGCluster. At least this is what I understood from the drawings. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Hi, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: Yes, AFAIK, their solution is two phase commit based, like Sequoia. I thought it was PGCluster. At least this is what I understood from the drawings. Uhm, you're right, it looks very similar to PgCluster, not Sequoia. So it's not two phase commit based, right? Regards Markus ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
On 3/4/07, Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would you define multi-master? i am able to write to any machine in cluster, and read from any. hopefully - wiithout any kind of single point of failure (like pgpool connection point). depesz ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
On 3/4/07, Devrim GÜNDÜZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PGCluster may be the thing that you are looking for. However, if you are looking at something that is similar to Oracle's RAC, it is the PGCluster-II that you are looking for, which is under heavy development right now. i dont know oracle. but would pgcluster work with triggers modifying data in other tables? i mean: when i do insert to table x, i have triggers that modify (or add) records in other tables as well. from what i know (which might be untrue) this will not work. depesz ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
On 3/5/07, Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe there is, or can be, any asynchronous multi-master replication system for any database that will work with all possible general purpose constructs. but i dont insist on async. if there is multi-master replication for postgresql it would be great if it would be sync. Given that, you might need to be more specific about your needs (and rethink your application architecture based on the reality of the issue), unless the constraints of synchronous replication work for you particular problem space. i dont have a project (at the moment) that would require multi-master. i'm just checking my options - as in original mail: i heard a lot of multi-master replication systems, but all of them seem to replicate queries, and not data. which is unacceptable for me. depesz ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
but i dont insist on async. if there is multi-master replication for postgresql it would be great if it would be sync. I don't know it this is what you are looking for, but this new link on the postgresql home page suggests that a new version of master-to-master replication is now available. http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.752 Regards, Richard Broersma Jr. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
I don't believe there is, or can be, any asynchronous multi-master replication system for any database that will work with all possible general purpose constructs. I believe it's possible in theory if you have system wide transaction locking, i.e. synchronous. However, if you have to have system wide transaction locking, what's the point? You have server X, that has to wait for a transaction to finish on server Y, why don't you make them the same server? It would be nice to have some sort of paradigm for synchronizing databases that go on and offline with each other and even have diverse data structures. I know there's a whole science of transaction processing which is simple in concept, but very often difficult to implement in practice. It's a matter of matching transactions/records up at an atomic level and replicating them across different servers. The sort of holy grail for me, and I believe a lot of other people, is to: 1. have a server that can easily and transparently replicate itself in different environments for speed, security, and fault tolerant purposes. 2. allow for people to go offline with their datasets, for instance on a laptop on an airplane, and then go back online with relative ease. 3. Have a well defined and simple system for identifying and dealing with conflicts that arise from multiple copies of the same dataset. Just ideas that I have on this topic. I wonder if anybody's doing any work on the subject. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
On 3/5/07, Richard Broersma Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but i dont insist on async. if there is multi-master replication for postgresql it would be great if it would be sync. I don't know it this is what you are looking for, but this new link on the postgresql home page suggests that a new version of master-to-master replication is now available. http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.752 i contacted the company some time ago, and the information i got was that their product is based on query-replication. depesz -- http://www.depesz.com/ - nowy, lepszy depesz ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
On Sunday 04 March 2007 21:28, Bill Moran wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Moran wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Moran wrote:
hubert depesz lubaczewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi,
i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as
i know there is none real multi-master replication system for
postgresql.
all i have seen are based on query replication with various
hacks for specific constructions (like now()).
my question is - is there any (even fully commercial) multi-master
replication system for postgresql that will work with all possible
constructs, triggers, random data and so on?
i mean - i dont want to bother with choosing to 'note' somehow that
'this particular query' has to be replicated somehow.
i'm thinking about working solution that will allow multi-master
connections.
anything? anywhere?
Have you looked at pgpool?
afaik pgpool is statement based and not really multimaster either ...
Well, it's multi-master to the degree that all servers are read/write,
and therefore any server can take over.
not sure I follow - pgpool will simply replay the queries to each
backend-server that are going through it.
I guess I'm comparing it to Slony, which has a clear delineation between
master and slave. With pgpool, you don't have the failover procedure in
the same way, in that each server can be read/write at all times.
This is typically reffered to as dual master (you have two unsynchronized
master servers), though the terminology is so mixed up these days none of it
is really clear.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
[GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
hi, i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as i know there is none real multi-master replication system for postgresql. all i have seen are based on query replication with various hacks for specific constructions (like now()). my question is - is there any (even fully commercial) multi-master replication system for postgresql that will work with all possible constructs, triggers, random data and so on? i mean - i dont want to bother with choosing to 'note' somehow that 'this particular query' has to be replicated somehow. i'm thinking about working solution that will allow multi-master connections. anything? anywhere? depesz ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
hubert depesz lubaczewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as i know there is none real multi-master replication system for postgresql. all i have seen are based on query replication with various hacks for specific constructions (like now()). my question is - is there any (even fully commercial) multi-master replication system for postgresql that will work with all possible constructs, triggers, random data and so on? i mean - i dont want to bother with choosing to 'note' somehow that 'this particular query' has to be replicated somehow. i'm thinking about working solution that will allow multi-master connections. anything? anywhere? Have you looked at pgpool? -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Bill Moran wrote: hubert depesz lubaczewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as i know there is none real multi-master replication system for postgresql. all i have seen are based on query replication with various hacks for specific constructions (like now()). my question is - is there any (even fully commercial) multi-master replication system for postgresql that will work with all possible constructs, triggers, random data and so on? i mean - i dont want to bother with choosing to 'note' somehow that 'this particular query' has to be replicated somehow. i'm thinking about working solution that will allow multi-master connections. anything? anywhere? Have you looked at pgpool? afaik pgpool is statement based and not really multimaster either ... Stefan ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Moran wrote: hubert depesz lubaczewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as i know there is none real multi-master replication system for postgresql. all i have seen are based on query replication with various hacks for specific constructions (like now()). my question is - is there any (even fully commercial) multi-master replication system for postgresql that will work with all possible constructs, triggers, random data and so on? i mean - i dont want to bother with choosing to 'note' somehow that 'this particular query' has to be replicated somehow. i'm thinking about working solution that will allow multi-master connections. anything? anywhere? Have you looked at pgpool? afaik pgpool is statement based and not really multimaster either ... Well, it's multi-master to the degree that all servers are read/write, and therefore any server can take over. How would you define multi-master? -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Bill Moran wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Moran wrote: hubert depesz lubaczewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as i know there is none real multi-master replication system for postgresql. all i have seen are based on query replication with various hacks for specific constructions (like now()). my question is - is there any (even fully commercial) multi-master replication system for postgresql that will work with all possible constructs, triggers, random data and so on? i mean - i dont want to bother with choosing to 'note' somehow that 'this particular query' has to be replicated somehow. i'm thinking about working solution that will allow multi-master connections. anything? anywhere? Have you looked at pgpool? afaik pgpool is statement based and not really multimaster either ... Well, it's multi-master to the degree that all servers are read/write, and therefore any server can take over. not sure I follow - pgpool will simply replay the queries to each backend-server that are going through it. You cannot directly write to the servers (well you can - but that will likely cause inconsistent data) - and you have all the problems with non-determinstic queries as well as problems of getting a node back in sync after a downtime or connection loss. How would you define multi-master? for true multimaster one would expect to be able to write to all the nodes and keep the data consistent/sync or have some sort of conflict resolution for an async solution. Stefan ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Hi, On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 20:18 +0100, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: anything? anywhere? PGCluster may be the thing that you are looking for. However, if you are looking at something that is similar to Oracle's RAC, it is the PGCluster-II that you are looking for, which is under heavy development right now. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: hi, i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as i know there is none real multi-master replication system for postgresql. all i have seen are based on query replication with various hacks for specific constructions (like now()). my question is - is there any (even fully commercial) multi-master replication system for postgresql that will work with all possible constructs, triggers, random data and so on? Not that I know of no. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake i mean - i dont want to bother with choosing to 'note' somehow that 'this particular query' has to be replicated somehow. i'm thinking about working solution that will allow multi-master connections. anything? anywhere? depesz ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Well, it's multi-master to the degree that all servers are read/write, and therefore any server can take over. How would you define multi-master? Per the original posts consideration, pgpool would have to be able to deal with constants such as now() and current_date. Can it? Joshua D. Drake ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Moran wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Moran wrote: hubert depesz lubaczewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as i know there is none real multi-master replication system for postgresql. all i have seen are based on query replication with various hacks for specific constructions (like now()). my question is - is there any (even fully commercial) multi-master replication system for postgresql that will work with all possible constructs, triggers, random data and so on? i mean - i dont want to bother with choosing to 'note' somehow that 'this particular query' has to be replicated somehow. i'm thinking about working solution that will allow multi-master connections. anything? anywhere? Have you looked at pgpool? afaik pgpool is statement based and not really multimaster either ... Well, it's multi-master to the degree that all servers are read/write, and therefore any server can take over. not sure I follow - pgpool will simply replay the queries to each backend-server that are going through it. I guess I'm comparing it to Slony, which has a clear delineation between master and slave. With pgpool, you don't have the failover procedure in the same way, in that each server can be read/write at all times. You cannot directly write to the servers (well you can - but that will likely cause inconsistent data) - and you have all the problems with non-determinstic queries as well as problems of getting a node back in sync after a downtime or connection loss. Right. How would you define multi-master? for true multimaster one would expect to be able to write to all the nodes and keep the data consistent/sync or have some sort of conflict resolution for an async solution. Something more like pgcluster II. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:18 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: hi, i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as i know there is none real multi-master replication system for postgresql. all i have seen are based on query replication with various hacks for specific constructions (like now()). my question is - is there any (even fully commercial) multi-master replication system for postgresql that will work with all possible constructs, triggers, random data and so on? i mean - i dont want to bother with choosing to 'note' somehow that 'this particular query' has to be replicated somehow. i'm thinking about working solution that will allow multi-master connections. I don't believe there is, or can be, any asynchronous multi-master replication system for any database that will work with all possible general purpose constructs. Given that, you might need to be more specific about your needs (and rethink your application architecture based on the reality of the issue), unless the constraints of synchronous replication work for you particular problem space. Cheers, Steve ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] real multi-master replication?
Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:18 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: i read about some replication system for postgresql, but - as far as i know there is none real multi-master replication system for postgresql. I don't believe there is, or can be, any asynchronous multi-master replication system for any database that will work with all possible general purpose constructs. Even more to the point: there is no universally applicable replication solution. If something such as the OP asks for existed, its overhead would be so extreme that hardly anyone would use it for real-world cases. So compromise is always the order of the day. Given that, you might need to be more specific about your needs (and rethink your application architecture based on the reality of the issue), Exactly. regards, tom lane ---(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
