Re: session_replication_role

Lists: pgsql-general
From: Terry Lee Tucker <terry(at)chosen-ones(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: session_replication_role
Date: 2008-04-15 17:47:39
Message-ID: 200804151347.39574.terry@chosen-ones.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-general

Version 8.3.1:

Is there a distinction between "ORIGIN" and "LOCAL" as related to
session_replication_role, and if so, what is it? I am unable to understand
from the documentation any distinction between the two settings.

TIA
--
Terry Lee Tucker
Turbo's IT Manager
Turbo, division of Ozburn-Hessey Logistics
2251 Jesse Jewell Pkwy NE
Gainesville, GA 30501
Tel: (336) 372-6812 Fax: (336) 372-6812 Cell: (336) 404-6987
terry(at)turbocorp(dot)com
www.turbocorp.com


From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: session_replication_role
Date: 2008-04-15 18:26:49
Message-ID: 60k5izug7q.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-general

terry(at)chosen-ones(dot)org (Terry Lee Tucker) writes:
> Is there a distinction between "ORIGIN" and "LOCAL" as related to
> session_replication_role, and if so, what is it? I am unable to understand
> from the documentation any distinction between the two settings.

The intent is that a system that is the "origin" for replication
changes (e.g. - a database where you'll be collecting
INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE information to replicate elsewhere) would run in
the "origin" role, normally.

The distinction from a practical perspective will take place when
stored functions that implement "replication stuff" detect what role
the system is in, and may behave differently.
--
(format nil "~S(at)~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/multiplexor.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #7. "When I've captured my adversary and he
says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this
is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought
I'll shoot him then say "No."" <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>


From: Terry Lee Tucker <terry(at)chosen-ones(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: session_replication_role
Date: 2008-04-15 19:35:13
Message-ID: 200804151535.13384.terry@chosen-ones.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tuesday 15 April 2008 14:26, Chris Browne wrote:
> terry(at)chosen-ones(dot)org (Terry Lee Tucker) writes:
> > Is there a distinction between "ORIGIN" and "LOCAL" as related to
> > session_replication_role, and if so, what is it? I am unable to
> > understand from the documentation any distinction between the two
> > settings.
>
> The intent is that a system that is the "origin" for replication
> changes (e.g. - a database where you'll be collecting
> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE information to replicate elsewhere) would run in
> the "origin" role, normally.
>
> The distinction from a practical perspective will take place when
> stored functions that implement "replication stuff" detect what role
> the system is in, and may behave differently.
> --

Thanks for the reply. I was unable to detect any change in trigger operation
when setting the variable to origin or local. I understand that you are
saying that the distinction only exists if my code is written to operate
differently based on the setting.

Thanks for the input...
--
Terry Lee Tucker
Turbo's IT Manager
Turbo, division of Ozburn-Hessey Logistics
2251 Jesse Jewell Pkwy NE
Gainesville, GA 30501
Tel: (336) 372-6812 Fax: (336) 372-6812 Cell: (336) 404-6987
terry(at)turbocorp(dot)com
www.turbocorp.com