On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/12/2016 12:46 PM, Lee Hachadoorian wrote: >> >> There are a wide variety of Postgres replication solutions, and I >> would like advice on which one would be appropriate to my use case. >> >> * Small (~half dozen) distributed workforce using a file sharing >> service, but without access to direct network connection over the >> internet >> * Database is updated infrequently, when new government agency data >> releases replace old data >> * Because database is updated infrequently, workforce can come >> together for LAN-based replication as needed >> * Entire database is on the order of a few GB >> >> Given this, I am considering the super lowtech "replication" solution >> of updating "master" and doing a full database drop and restore on the >> "slaves". But I would like to know which of the other (real) >> replication solutions might work for this use case. > > > If I follow correctly the layout is?: > > Main database <--- Govt. data > | > | > \ / > > File share > | > | > \ / > > DB DB DB DB DB DB > > User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4 User 5 User 6 > > > > For your simple scenario you might want to look at: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/app-pgbasebackup.html > That diagram is what I am proposing. pg_basebackup looks interesting. My initial impression is that the main gain would be for a multiple database cluster. Are there other advantages to using this in preference to a full DB dump and restore if all of our data will be in a single database? Best, --Lee -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
