bnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Brad Nicholson) writes:
> On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 12:19 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
>> >> Aftab Alam wrote:
>> >>> Yes ,I want a replica of my db so that I can use it as failover
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Version 7.3 linux AS release 4 update 6
>> >>
>> >> Version 7.3 is end of life and I don't know of *any* of the
>> >> replication technologies that will work with it.
>> >
>> > Slony-I version 1.1 can still work with 7.3. We ceased support of 7.3
>> > when we released v1.2, but recommended, at the time, using 1.1 for
>> > 7.3-compatibility.
>>
>> And as buggy as slony 1.0 might have been, I ran it for about 2 years
>> in production replicating a HUGE amount of data daily with zero
>> failures. Of course, the servers were fast and reliable, so that might
>> have helped cover a lot of issues other people had for us.
>
> And when we ran it we had replica's getting corrupted due to bugs almost
> weekly (based on a particular pattern of activity). The edges are
> there. It did never lose data on us.
Mind you, that was on 7.4, not 7.3.
It's possible that:
a) 7.4 did new stuff, so that those index corruptions would not have been
present in 7.3, but also that
b) 7.3 might have "data-eating problems not present in 7.4."
I *would* suggest using 1.1.[latest], of Slony-I, as that should have
the fewest issues, on the Slony-I side, of any version available to
run against PG 7.3, and should work the most cleanly.
But on the other hand, I'd *also* strongly urge using this to get off
of v7.3 and onto something a LOT newer, ASAP. I think you can get to
PostgreSQL 8.1 using the 1.1 branch, which is usefully newer :-).
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/unix.html
Economists are still trying to figure out why the girls with the least
principle draw the most interest.
