Thanks for note. I'm trying to avoid triggers based on past trauma from going into a client setup that uses a zillion of them and having to wait in order of seconds for a simple mod DML statement to execute :) I've been looking for an alternative that either sits above the database level (without building my own) or hoping there is a binary logging option. Anyway, I've been reading up on triggers, replication and synchronization options for PostgreSQL and it seems like the performance impact isn't too bad. In particular, I've been reading up on Bucardo and it seems to address all my needs-- I also fired off an email to Selena D on it and she's also affirmed that it looks to solve my problem. I'm going to setup an environment for testing and then post my questions directly to the bucardo-users mailing list. Omar --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: replication from multiple "master" servers to a single read-only slave > To: "Omar Mehmood" <omarmehmood@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Ben Chobot" <bench@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 2:12 PM > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 04:18:30PM > -0800, Omar Mehmood wrote: > > (but I want to avoid using DB triggers). > > <snip> > > > I will check out Bucardo. > > Bucardo uses triggers just like Slony does. That said, it > seems strange that > you'd want to avoid them. Is there any particular reason > you want to avoid > them? > > Bucardo should handle the disconnection problems you > described just fine. > > -- > Joshua Tolley / eggyknap > End Point Corporation > http://www.endpoint.com > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
