Horton
Menu

Thread

  1. replication followup

    Justin Banks <justinb@wamnet.com> — 2001-01-05T20:17:02Z

    Hello -
	As a followup to my mail about replication yesterday, I've
realized that I can make replication bi-directional, with each
(non-replicant master initiated) connection to a backend it's own
master with respect to that connection and all data modifications made 
within it. In order to do that, though, I need to add items to the
structs Port (be) and PGconn (fe). After I do that, the asynch stuff
would just fall into place, and the performance should impove. My
question is whether there is anything I should be really careful of
when modifying these structs? I'm not sure if there is code that uses
byte offsets or something into these structs, so any warnings would be 
much appreciated.

On a related note, does anyone know what the status of ER's
replication is?

-justinb

-- 
Justin Banks - WAM!NET Inc., Eagan MN justinb@wamnet.com
When you find two people who agree completely, you can be pretty 
sure that exactly one of them is doing the thinking.

  2. Re: replication followup

    Marc Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-01-05T20:24:33Z

    On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Justin Banks wrote:

> Hello -
> 	As a followup to my mail about replication yesterday, I've
> realized that I can make replication bi-directional, with each
> (non-replicant master initiated) connection to a backend it's own
> master with respect to that connection and all data modifications made
> within it. In order to do that, though, I need to add items to the
> structs Port (be) and PGconn (fe). After I do that, the asynch stuff
> would just fall into place, and the performance should impove. My
> question is whether there is anything I should be really careful of
> when modifying these structs? I'm not sure if there is code that uses
> byte offsets or something into these structs, so any warnings would be
> much appreciated.
>
> On a related note, does anyone know what the status of ER's
> replication is?

It was comitted to the source tree, under contrib, before Xmas, and will
be in the beta2 distribution schedualed for this weekend ...

  3. Re: replication followup

    Sandeep Joshi <sjoshi@zambeel.com> — 2001-01-05T20:39:52Z

    How do we get it?
I want to test the product.

Sandeep

> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Justin Banks wrote:
>
> > Hello -
> >       As a followup to my mail about replication yesterday, I've
> > realized that I can make replication bi-directional, with each
> > (non-replicant master initiated) connection to a backend it's own
> > master with respect to that connection and all data modifications made
> > within it. In order to do that, though, I need to add items to the
> > structs Port (be) and PGconn (fe). After I do that, the asynch stuff
> > would just fall into place, and the performance should impove. My
> > question is whether there is anything I should be really careful of
> > when modifying these structs? I'm not sure if there is code that uses
> > byte offsets or something into these structs, so any warnings would be
> > much appreciated.
> >
> > On a related note, does anyone know what the status of ER's
> > replication is?
>
> It was comitted to the source tree, under contrib, before Xmas, and will
> be in the beta2 distribution schedualed for this weekend ...

  4. Re: replication followup

    Justin Banks <justinb@wamnet.com> — 2001-01-05T21:21:52Z

    >>>>> "Sandeep" == Sandeep Joshi <sjoshi@Zambeel.com> writes:

 Sandeep> How do we get it?  I want to test the product.

I'm going to do a little more work on it right now, and I'll certainly 
email/whatever it to you when I'm done. I've developed it on SGI, but 
it should run fine wherever dlopen() and dlsym() are supported. I'll 
test it on linux and solaris before I hand it to anybody else. I'll
make it available (most likely via ftp) on this coming Monday.

 >> It was comitted to the source tree, under contrib, before Xmas,
 >> and will be in the beta2 distribution schedualed for this weekend
 >> ...

Aaah. I should have known that if I came up with something by myself,
it would become available shortly thereafter ;) Perhaps there's no
point, then.

-justinb

-- 
Justin Banks - WAM!NET Inc., Eagan MN justinb@wamnet.com
When you find two people who agree completely, you can be pretty 
sure that exactly one of them is doing the thinking.

  5. Re: replication followup

    Marc Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-01-05T22:01:47Z

    On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Sandeep Joshi wrote:

> How do we get it?
> I want to test the product.

downloadable as a tar file from http://www.pgsql.com -> Download ...

>
> Sandeep
>
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Justin Banks wrote:
> >
> > > Hello -
> > >       As a followup to my mail about replication yesterday, I've
> > > realized that I can make replication bi-directional, with each
> > > (non-replicant master initiated) connection to a backend it's own
> > > master with respect to that connection and all data modifications made
> > > within it. In order to do that, though, I need to add items to the
> > > structs Port (be) and PGconn (fe). After I do that, the asynch stuff
> > > would just fall into place, and the performance should impove. My
> > > question is whether there is anything I should be really careful of
> > > when modifying these structs? I'm not sure if there is code that uses
> > > byte offsets or something into these structs, so any warnings would be
> > > much appreciated.
> > >
> > > On a related note, does anyone know what the status of ER's
> > > replication is?
> >
> > It was comitted to the source tree, under contrib, before Xmas, and will
> > be in the beta2 distribution schedualed for this weekend ...
>

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org