On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:13:32AM +0100, Jasmin Dizdarevic wrote: >> My idea was the one, that john described: DML and DDL are done on the small >> box and reporting on the "big mama" with streaming replication and hot >> stand-by enabled. the only problem is that we use temp tables for reporting >> purposes. i hope that the query duration impact with not using temp tables >> will be equalized through running dml/ddl on the small box. > > By the way, despite my flip comment, it is entirely possible that what > you need would be better handled by one of the other replication > systems. Slony is actually well-suited to this sort of thing, despite > the overhead that it imposes. This is a matter of trade-offs, and you > might want to think about different roles for different boxes -- > especially since hardware is so cheap these days. > Yeah, it's possible one of the async master-master systems like bucardo or rubyrep would also fit his needs. There are options here, just no full on pony/unicorn/pegasus mix like everyone hopes for. Oh, I guess if someone is looking to fund/help development of such a thing, it might be worth pointing people to Postgres-XC (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Postgres-XC). It's got a ways to go, but they are at least trying. Robert Treat play: xzilla.net work: omniti.com hiring: l42.org/Lg -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
