Add to replication.

4404c9ae · Bruce Momjian · c0e78467 · 4404c9ae
隐藏空白更改
内联并排

Showing with 169 addition and 7 deletion

doc/TODO.detail/replication doc/TODO.detail/replication +169 -7

未找到文件。
--- a/doc/TODO.detail/replication
+++ b/doc/TODO.detail/replication
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Dec 24 10:01:18 1999
 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
 	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA11295
 	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:01:17 -0500 (EST)
-Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.8 $) with ESMTP id KAA20310 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:39:18 -0500 (EST)
+Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.9 $) with ESMTP id KAA20310 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:39:18 -0500 (EST)
 Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
 	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA61760;
 	Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:31:13 -0500 (EST)
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Dec 24 18:31:03 1999
 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
 	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id TAA26244
 	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:31:02 -0500 (EST)
-Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.8 $) with ESMTP id TAA12730 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:30:05 -0500 (EST)
+Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.9 $) with ESMTP id TAA12730 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:30:05 -0500 (EST)
 Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
 	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA57851;
 	Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:23:31 -0500 (EST)
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Dec 24 21:31:10 1999
 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
 	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA02578
 	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:31:09 -0500 (EST)
-Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.8 $) with ESMTP id WAA16641 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:18:56 -0500 (EST)
+Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.9 $) with ESMTP id WAA16641 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:18:56 -0500 (EST)
 Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
 	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA89135;
 	Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:11:12 -0500 (EST)
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sun Dec 26 08:31:09 1999
 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
 	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA17976
 	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:31:07 -0500 (EST)
-Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.8 $) with ESMTP id JAA23337 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:28:36 -0500 (EST)
+Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.9 $) with ESMTP id JAA23337 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:28:36 -0500 (EST)
 Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
 	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA90738;
 	Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:21:58 -0500 (EST)
@@ -909,7 +909,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Thu Dec 30 08:01:09 1999
 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
 	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA10317
 	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:01:08 -0500 (EST)
-Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.8 $) with ESMTP id IAA02365 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:37:10 -0500 (EST)
+Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.9 $) with ESMTP id IAA02365 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:37:10 -0500 (EST)
 Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
 	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA87902;
 	Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:34:22 -0500 (EST)
@@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-patches@hub.org Sun Jan  2 23:01:38 2000
 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
 	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA16274
 	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 00:01:28 -0500 (EST)
-Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.8 $) with ESMTP id XAA02655 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:45:55 -0500 (EST)
+Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.9 $) with ESMTP id XAA02655 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:45:55 -0500 (EST)
 Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
 	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13828;
 	Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:40:47 -0500 (EST)
@@ -1424,7 +1424,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan  4 10:31:01 2000
 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
 	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA17522
 	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:31:00 -0500 (EST)
-Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.8 $) with ESMTP id LAA01541 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:27:30 -0500 (EST)
+Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.9 $) with ESMTP id LAA01541 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:27:30 -0500 (EST)
 Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
 	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA09992;
 	Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:18:07 -0500 (EST)
@@ -4887,3 +4887,165 @@ TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

 http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl

+From pgsql-hackers-owner+M9997@postgresql.org Wed Jun 13 09:05:56 2001
+Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M9997@postgresql.org>
+Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
+	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f5DD5tE28260
+	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:05:55 -0400 (EDT)
+Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
+	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5DD5xE12437;
+	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:05:59 -0400 (EDT)
+	(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M9997@postgresql.org)
+Received: from fizbanrsm.server.lan.at (zep4.it-austria.net [213.150.1.74])
+	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5DD19E00635
+	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:01:10 -0400 (EDT)
+	(envelope-from ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at)
+Received: from gz0153.gc.spardat.at (gz0153.gc.spardat.at [172.20.10.149])
+	by fizbanrsm.server.lan.at (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f5DD13m08153
+	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:01:03 +0200
+Received: by sdexcgtw01.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
+	id <M6AB97MY>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:00:02 +0200
+Message-ID: <11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368322@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at>
+From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
+To: "'reinoud@xs4all.nl'" <reinoud@xs4all.nl>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
+Subject: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Postgres Replication
+Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:55:48 +0200
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
+Content-Type: text/plain;
+	charset="iso-8859-1"
+Precedence: bulk
+Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
+Status: OR
+
+
+> Well as I read back the thread I see 2 different approaches to
+> replication:
+> 
+> 1: tight integrated replication. 
+> pro:
+> - bi-directional (or multidirectional): updates are possible everywhere
+> - A cluster of servers allways has the same state. 
+> - it does not matter to which server you connect
+> con:
+> - network between servers will be a bottleneck, especially if it is a
+> WAN connection
+> - only full replication possible
+
+I do not understand that point, if it is trigger based, you 
+have all the flexibility you need. (only some tables, only some rows,
+different rows to different targets ....), 
+(or do you mean not all targets, that could also be achieved with triggers)
+
+> - what happens if one server is down? (or the network between) are
+> commits still possible
+
+No, updates are not possible if one target is not reachable, 
+that would not be synchronous and would again need business rules
+to resolve conflicts.
+
+Allowing updates when a target is not reachable would require admin 
+intervention.
+
+Andreas
+
+---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
+TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
+
+From pgsql-hackers-owner+M10005@postgresql.org Wed Jun 13 11:15:48 2001
+Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M10005@postgresql.org>
+Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
+	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f5DFFmE08382
+	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:15:48 -0400 (EDT)
+Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
+	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5DFFoE53621;
+	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:15:50 -0400 (EDT)
+	(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M10005@postgresql.org)
+Received: from mail.greatbridge.com (mail.greatbridge.com [65.196.68.36])
+	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5DEk7E38930
+	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:46:07 -0400 (EDT)
+	(envelope-from djohnson@greatbridge.com)
+Received: from j2.us.greatbridge.com (djohnsonpc.us.greatbridge.com [65.196.69.70])
+	by mail.greatbridge.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f5DEhfQ22566;
+	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:43:41 -0400
+From: Darren Johnson <djohnson@greatbridge.com>
+Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:44:11 GMT
+Message-ID: <20010613.14441100@j2.us.greatbridge.com>
+Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Postgres Replication
+To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
+cc: "'reinoud@xs4all.nl'" <reinoud@xs4all.nl>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
+Reply-To: Darren Johnson <djohnson@greatbridge.com>
+	<11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368322@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at>
+References: <11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368322@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at>
+X-Mailer: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; StarOffice/5.2;Linux)
+X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
+X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by postgresql.org id f5DEk8E38931
+Precedence: bulk
+Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
+Status: OR
+
+
+> > - only full replication possible
+
+> I do not understand that point, if it is trigger based, you
+> have all the flexibility you need. (only some tables, only some rows,
+> different rows to different targets ....),
+> (or do you mean not all targets, that could also be achieved with 
+triggers)
+
+Currently with Postgres-R, it is one database replicating all tables to 
+all servers in the group communication system.  There are some ways 
+around
+this by invoking the -r option when a SQL statement should be replicated, 
+and leaving the -r option off for non-replicated scenarios.  IMHO this is
+not a good solution.  
+
+A better solution will need to be implemented, which involves a 
+subscription table(s) with relation/server information.  There are two
+ideas for subscribing and receiving replicated data.
+
+1) Receiver driven propagation - A simple solution where all 
+transactions are propagated and the receiving servers will reference
+the subscription information before applying updates.
+
+2) Sender driven propagation - A more optimal and complex solution 
+where servers do not receive any messages regarding data items for 
+which they have not subscribed
+
+
+> > - what happens if one server is down? (or the network between) are
+> > commits still possible
+
+> No, updates are not possible if one target is not reachable,
+
+AFAIK, Postgres-R can still replicate if one target is not reachable,
+but only to the remaining servers ;).  
+
+There is a scenario that could arise if a server issues a lock 
+request then fails or goes off line.  There is code that checks 
+for this condition, which needs to be merged with the branch we have.
+
+> that would not be synchronous and would again need business rules
+> to resolve conflicts.
+
+Yes the failed server would not be synchronized, and getting this
+failed server back in sync needs to be addressed.
+
+> Allowing updates when a target is not reachable would require admin
+> intervention.
+
+In its current state yes, but our goal would be to eliminate this
+requirement as well.
+
+
+
+Darren
+
+---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
+TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
+subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
+message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
+