| Lists: | pgsql-general |
|---|
| From: | "Houssais Hugues" <Hugues(dot)Houssais(at)thomson(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Unify distant Postgres databases |
| Date: | 2006-05-05 09:21:07 |
| Message-ID: | 9C1918067C3BC14C9C351C206D8A84370464EE5E@rennsmail03.eu.thmulti.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
We desire to implement a multi-site server that unifies data from
distant Postgres databases in a nightly batch. The distant databases
have all the same architecture (schema). The size of data exchanged
between distant servers and the multi-site manager has to be reduced to
the strictly usefully data.
We naturally have been interested by the WAL archiving (PITR). But after
a deep analysis of this skill, we still encounter problems. The main
problem is unifying the data from many databases in a common database.
Has anyone experienced a solution to this problem... maybe not with WAL?
Thanks
Hugues
| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Houssais Hugues <Hugues(dot)Houssais(at)thomson(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unify distant Postgres databases |
| Date: | 2006-05-05 17:09:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1146848995.22037.64.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 04:21, Houssais Hugues wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We desire to implement a multi-site server that unifies data from
> distant Postgres databases in a nightly batch. The distant databases
> have all the same architecture (schema). The size of data exchanged
> between distant servers and the multi-site manager has to be reduced
> to the strictly usefully data.
>
> We naturally have been interested by the WAL archiving (PITR). But
> after a deep analysis of this skill, we still encounter problems. The
> main problem is unifying the data from many databases in a common
> database.
>
> Has anyone experienced a solution to this problem... maybe not with
> WAL?
Are you talking a big multi-way setup? That's rather complex, and
resolution of conflicting updates can keep a DBA busy full time in a
poorly thought out setup.
OTOH, if you're looking at having one or more one-way pushes in your
setup, you might want to look at using slony. There are a lot of ways
you can set it up, depending on your needs. Got a bit more detail on
what you're wanting to do?