Postgresql replication: londiste vs. slony -


has had experience using londiste? alternative slony postgres replication. have been beating head against wall trying slony work way need , looking easier way.

londiste seems alternative, wanted see if has pros/cons before commit switch.

i have used both , requirements londiste option.
have simple set subset of tables replicated staging server live large batch updates , insert , intraday smaller updates running on postgres 8.4 , centos 5.5 , skytools 2 , use queue component event based actions. have used slony 1.* series can't comment on more recent versions.

some pros londiste

  1. simple set up
  2. generally simple administer
  3. haven't had issues robustness of replication in 8 months of production use
  4. also can used generic queing system outside of replication , quite simple write own consumer

some cons

  1. documentation pretty scant
  2. you need careful when implementing ddl changes
  3. it won't stop making changes in slave
  4. can't used cascading replication or failover/switchover use case

i limit comment on slony experience complex set , administer , version used did not compare favourably on tolerance network issues londiste have been used cascading replication , switchover use cases.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

apache - Add omitted ? to URLs -

redirect - bbPress Forum - rewrite to wwww.mysite prohibits login -

php - How can I stop spam on my custom forum/blog? -