On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, William Temperley wrote: >> > I could potentially run a database in each of these countries and >> > provide 100% uptime, obviously raising the issue of version conflicts >> > that would require hand-merging. > > Can you partition data on origin? > If that's possible, then do it and use a schema per origin to simplify the > administration thereafter, and "just" replicate some tables from orginin to UK > and central data from UK to editing countries. > Thanks Dimitri, that might be the way forward for us. I guess that's what's referred to in the Federated database on http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Londiste_Tutorial. Eventually all data will need to find it's way into the main schema, however. Once the multi-origin tables are replicated back to the UK they could then be merged into this under supervision, though I'm not sure what would happen to them once they were merged - I guess this gives a multi-master situation. >> Le Wednesday 15 April 2009, Greg Smith a écrit : >> It sounds like you want an asynchronous master-slave database architecture >> where the slaves can also send changes back to the master, but didn't know >> that's what you should be looking for. >> That is what I was looking for, thanks Greg. > > If you're afraid about their complexity, try londiste and enjoy :) > -- > dim > Londiste seems to be a consensus. It looks good - modular, configurable and it's Python! Cool. Thanks again, Will -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
