It it possible to get a system that does syncronous replication and also allows slaves to catch up if they're down for a period of time like you can with asyncronous? I'm just interested. Of course a grid or a clustwer is better to makesure all servers are in sync, but there's performance issues with the 2 phase commit isn't there? Just for the record I'm a programmer, not a database person really, so I only know the basics. --- Jeff Larsen <jlar310@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Glyn Astill wrote: > > >> Thanks everyone for your replies. EnterpriseDB looks like the > way to > > >> go if we want good replication. > > > > > > Sorry, this makes no sense to me -- EnterpriseDB has no > replication > > > solution that I know of. > > > > Yeah, there is: > > > > http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/enterprisedb_replication.do > > Yes, but I'd like something better than "near real time" as the > above > page describes. Or maybe someone could clarify that.... Besides, > EnterpriseDB does not save me enough money. In my current > commercial > DB, if a transaction is committed on the master, it is guaranteed > to > be committed to the secondary. In our business, losing one customer > order could lose us the customer for good. > > Jeff > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org/ > Glyn Astill ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! Mail now has unlimited storage, which means you can have spam control and more space for those important e-mails. http://uk.mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
