On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Stuart Bishop <stuart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Stuart Bishop <stuart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Jerry Richards >>> <jerry.richards@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Is synchronous postgresql replication slower than asynchronous? If so, how >>>> much? I am looking into database replication for a phone system, so the >>>> response time is of concern. >>> >>> You might want to investigate pgpool-ii. It sits as a proxy between >>> the client and the databases, and as queries are executed >>> simultaneously, a synchronous replication setup should be just as fast >>> as an unreplicated setup. >> >> Can you share your actual results on that? > > No. This is based on my assumptions from the design, not from actual > tests. I'm currently asynchronously replicated with Slony-I and > looking at PG 9.1 builtin replication for our simpler clusters. Sync rep 9.1 allows you to have >2 servers involved, which is really necessary for availability and robustness. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
