From goran@kirra.net Mon Dec 20 14:30:54 1999
Received: from villa.bildbasen.se (villa.bildbasen.se [193.45.225.97])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA29058
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:30:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 2485 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1999 20:29:53 -0000
Received: from a112.dial.kiruna.se (HELO kirra.net) (193.45.238.12)
  by villa.bildbasen.se with SMTP; 20 Dec 1999 20:29:53 -0000
Sender: goran
Message-ID: <385E9192.226CC37D@kirra.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:29:06 +0100
From: Goran Thyni <goran@kirra.net>
Organization: kirra.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.13 i586)
X-Accept-Language: sv, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
CC: "neil d. quiogue" <nquiogue@ieee.org>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: QUESTION: Replication
References: <199912201508.KAA20572@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: OR

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We need major work in this area, or at least a plan and an FAQ item.
> We are getting major questions on this, and I don't know enough even to
> make an FAQ item telling people their options.

My 2 cents, or 2 ören since I'm a Swede, on this:

It is pretty simple to build a replication with pg_dump, transfer,
empty replic and reload.
But if we want "live replicas" we better base our efforts on a
mechanism using WAL-logs to rollforward the replicas.

regards, 
-----------------
Göran Thyni
On quiet nights you can hear Windows NT reboot!

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: 1.6 $) 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)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:30:48 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA58879
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:29:51 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from bocs170n.black-oak.COM ([38.149.137.131])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA58795
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:29:00 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from DWalker@black-oak.com)
From: DWalker@black-oak.com
To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: [HACKERS] database replication
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:27:59 -0500
Message-ID: <OFD38C9424.B391F434-ON85256851.0054F41A@black-oak.COM>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes01n/BOCS(Release 5.0.1|July 16, 1999) at 12/24/99
	10:28:01 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: OR

<P>I've been toying with the idea of implementing database replication for =
the last few days. &nbsp;The system I'm proposing will be a seperate progra=
m which can be run on any machine and will most likely be implemented in Py=
thon. &nbsp;What I'm looking for at this point are gaping holes in my think=
ing/logic/etc. &nbsp;Here's what I'm thinking...</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>1) I wa=
nt to make this program an additional layer over PostgreSQL. &nbsp;I really=
 don't want to hack server code if I can get away with it. &nbsp;At this po=
int I don't feel I need to.</P><P>2) The replication system will need to ad=
d at least one field to each table in each database that needs to be replic=
ated. &nbsp;This field will be a date/time stamp which identifies the &quot=
;last update&quot; of the record. &nbsp;This field will be called PGR=5FTIM=
E for lack of a better name. &nbsp;Because this field will be used from wit=
hin programs and triggers it can be longer so as to not mistake it for a us=
er field.</P><P>3) For each table to be replicated the replication system w=
ill programatically add one plpgsql function and trigger to modify the PGR=
=5FTIME field on both UPDATEs and INSERTs. &nbsp;The name of this function =
and trigger will be along the lines of &lt;table=5Fname&gt;=5Freplication=
=5Fupdate=5Ftrigger and &lt;table=5Fname&gt;=5Freplication=5Fupdate=5Ffunct=
ion. &nbsp;The function is a simple two-line chunk of code to set the field=
 PGR=5FTIME equal to NOW. &nbsp;The trigger is called before each insert/up=
date. &nbsp;When looking at the Docs I see that times are stored in Zulu (G=
T) time. &nbsp;Because of this I don't have to worry about time zones and t=
he like. &nbsp;I need direction on this part (such as &quot;hey dummy, look=
 at page N of file X.&quot;).</P><P>4) At this point we have tables which c=
an, at a basic level, tell the replication system when they were last updat=
ed.</P><P>5) The replication system will have a database of its own to reco=
rd the last replication event, hold configuration, logs, etc. &nbsp;I'd pre=
fer to store the configuration in a PostgreSQL table but it could just as e=
asily be stored in a text file on the filesystem somewhere.</P><P>6) To han=
dle replication I basically check the local &quot;last replication time&quo=
t; and compare it against the remote PGR=5FTIME fields. &nbsp;If the remote=
 PGR=5FTIME is greater than the last replication time then change the local=
 copy of the database, otherwise, change the remote end of the database. &n=
bsp;At this point I don't have a way to know WHICH field changed between th=
e two replicas so either I do ROW level replication or I check each field. =
&nbsp;I check PGR=5FTIME to determine which field is the most current. &nbs=
p;Some fine tuning of this process will have to occur no doubt.</P><P>7) Th=
e commandline utility, fired off by something like cron, could run several =
times during the day -- command line parameters can be implemented to say P=
USH ALL CHANGES TO SERVER A, or PULL ALL CHANGES FROM SERVER B.</P><P>&nbsp=
;</P><P>Questions/Concerns:</P><P>1) How far do I go with this? &nbsp;Do I =
start manhandling the system catalogs (pg=5F* tables)?</P><P>2) As to #2 an=
d #3 above, I really don't like tools automagically changing my tables but =
at this point I don't see a way around it. &nbsp;I guess this is where the =
testing comes into play.</P><P>3) Security: the replication app will have t=
o have pretty good rights to the database so it can add the nessecary funct=
ions and triggers, modify table schema, etc. &nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbs=
p; So, any &quot;you're insane and should run home to momma&quot; comments?=
</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Damond=
</P><P></P>=

************

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: 1.6 $) 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)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:22:54 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA57710
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:21:56 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com (sm2.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.55])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA57680
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:21:25 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from ELOEHR@austin.rr.com)
Received: from austin.rr.com ([24.93.40.248]) by Mail.austin.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19);
  Fri, 24 Dec 1999 18:12:50 -0600
Message-ID: <38640E2D.75136600@austin.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 18:22:05 -0600
From: Ed Loehr <ELOEHR@austin.rr.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20smp i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DWalker@black-oak.com
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] database replication
References: <OFD38C9424.B391F434-ON85256851.0054F41A@black-oak.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: OR

DWalker@black-oak.com wrote:

> 6) To handle replication I basically check the local "last
> replication time" and compare it against the remote PGR_TIME
> fields.  If the remote PGR_TIME is greater than the last replication
> time then change the local copy of the database, otherwise, change
> the remote end of the database.  At this point I don't have a way to
> know WHICH field changed between the two replicas so either I do ROW
> level replication or I check each field.  I check PGR_TIME to
> determine which field is the most current.  Some fine tuning of this
> process will have to occur no doubt.

Interesting idea.  I can see how this might sync up two databases
somehow.  For true replication, however, I would always want every
replicated database to be, at the very least, internally consistent
(i.e., referential integrity), even if it was a little behind on
processing transactions.  In this method, its not clear how
consistency is every achieved/guaranteed at any point in time if the
input stream of changes is continuous.  If the input stream ceased,
then I can see how this approach might eventually catch up and totally
resync everything, but it looks *very* computationally  expensive.

But I might have missed something.  How would internal consistency be
maintained?


> 7) The commandline utility, fired off by something like cron, could
> run several times during the day -- command line parameters can be
> implemented to say PUSH ALL CHANGES TO SERVER A, or PULL ALL CHANGES
> FROM SERVER B.

My two cents is that, while I can see this kind of database syncing as
valuable, this is not the kind of "replication" I had in mind.  This
may already possible by simply copying the database.  What replication
means to me is a live, continuously streaming sequence of updates from
one database to another where the replicated database is always
internally consistent, available for read-only queries, and never "too
far" out of sync with the source/primary database.

What does replication mean to others?

Cheers,
Ed Loehr



************

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: 1.6 $) 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)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:10:56 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA89019
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:09:59 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from bocs170n.black-oak.COM ([38.149.137.131])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA88957;
	Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:09:11 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from dwalker@black-oak.com)
Received: from gcx80 ([151.196.99.113])
          by bocs170n.black-oak.COM (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.1)
          with SMTP id 1999122422080835:6 ;
          Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:08:08 -0500 
Message-ID: <001b01bf4e9e$647287d0$af63a8c0@walkers.org>
From: "Damond Walker" <dwalker@black-oak.com>
To: <owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
References: <OFD38C9424.B391F434-ON85256851.0054F41A@black-oak.COM> <38640E2D.75136600@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] database replication
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:07:55 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on notes01n/BOCS(Release 5.0.1|July 16, 1999) at 12/24/99
	10:08:09 PM,
	Serialize by Router on notes01n/BOCS(Release 5.0.1|July 16, 1999) at 12/24/99
	10:08:11 PM,
	Serialize complete at 12/24/99 10:08:11 PM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: OR

>
> Interesting idea.  I can see how this might sync up two databases
> somehow.  For true replication, however, I would always want every
> replicated database to be, at the very least, internally consistent
> (i.e., referential integrity), even if it was a little behind on
> processing transactions.  In this method, its not clear how
> consistency is every achieved/guaranteed at any point in time if the
> input stream of changes is continuous.  If the input stream ceased,
> then I can see how this approach might eventually catch up and totally
> resync everything, but it looks *very* computationally  expensive.
>

    What's the typical unit of work for the database?  Are we talking about
update transactions which span the entire DB?  Or are we talking about
updating maybe 1% or less of the database everyday?  I'd think it would be
more towards the latter than the former.  So, yes, this process would be
computationally expensive but how many records would actually have to be
sent back and forth?

> But I might have missed something.  How would internal consistency be
> maintained?
>

    Updates that occur at site A will be moved to site B and vice versa.
Consistency would be maintained.  The only problem that I can see right off
the bat would be what if site A and site B made changes to a row and then
site C was brought into the picture?  Which one wins?

    Someone *has* to win when it comes to this type of thing.  You really
DON'T want to start merging row changes...

>
> My two cents is that, while I can see this kind of database syncing as
> valuable, this is not the kind of "replication" I had in mind.  This
> may already possible by simply copying the database.  What replication
> means to me is a live, continuously streaming sequence of updates from
> one database to another where the replicated database is always
> internally consistent, available for read-only queries, and never "too
> far" out of sync with the source/primary database.
>

    Sounds like you're talking about distributed transactions to me.  That's
an entirely different subject all-together.  What you describe can be done
by copying a database...but as you say, this would only work in a read-only
situation.


                Damond


************

From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sat Dec 25 16:35:07 1999
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA28890
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 17:35:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA86997;
	Sat, 25 Dec 1999 17:29:10 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 25 Dec 1999 17:28:09 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA86863
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 17:27:11 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from mtiwmhc08.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc08.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.19])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA86798
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 17:26:34 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from pgsql@rkirkpat.net)
Received: from [192.168.3.100] ([12.74.72.219])
          by mtiwmhc08.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134)
          with ESMTP id <19991225222554.VIOL28505@[12.74.72.219]>;
          Sat, 25 Dec 1999 22:25:54 +0000
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 15:25:47 -0700 (MST)
From: Ryan Kirkpatrick <pgsql@rkirkpat.net>
X-Sender: rkirkpat@excelsior.rkirkpat.net
To: DWalker@black-oak.com
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] database replication
In-Reply-To: <OFD38C9424.B391F434-ON85256851.0054F41A@black-oak.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9912251433310.1551-100000@excelsior.rkirkpat.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: OR

On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 DWalker@black-oak.com wrote:

> I've been toying with the idea of implementing database replication
> for the last few days.

	I too have been thinking about this some over the last year or
two, just trying to find a quick and easy way to do it. I am not so
interested in replication, as in synchronization, as in between a desktop
machine and a laptop, so I can keep the databases on each in sync with
each other. For this sort of purpose, both the local and remote databases
would be "idle" at the time of syncing.

> 2) The replication system will need to add at least one field to each
> table in each database that needs to be replicated. This field will be
> a date/time stamp which identifies the "last update" of the record.  
> This field will be called PGR_TIME for lack of a better name.  
> Because this field will be used from within programs and triggers it
> can be longer so as to not mistake it for a user field.

	How about a single, seperate table with the fields of 'database',
'tablename', 'oid', 'last_changed', that would store the same data as your
PGR_TIME field. It would be seperated from the actually data tables, and
therefore would be totally transparent to any database interface
applications. The 'oid' field would hold each row's OID, a nice, unique
identification number for the row, while the other fields would tell which
table and database the oid is in. Then this table can be compared with the
this table on a remote machine to quickly find updates and changes, then
each differences can be dealt with in turn.

> 3) For each table to be replicated the replication system will
> programatically add one plpgsql function and trigger to modify the
> PGR_TIME field on both UPDATEs and INSERTs.  The name of this function
> and trigger will be along the lines of
> <table_name>_replication_update_trigger and
> <table_name>_replication_update_function.  The function is a simple
> two-line chunk of code to set the field PGR_TIME equal to NOW.  The
> trigger is called before each insert/update.  When looking at the Docs
> I see that times are stored in Zulu (GT) time.  Because of this I
> don't have to worry about time zones and the like.  I need direction
> on this part (such as "hey dummy, look at page N of file X.").

	I like this idea, better than any I have come up with yet. Though,
how are you going to handle DELETEs? 

> 6) To handle replication I basically check the local "last replication
> time" and compare it against the remote PGR_TIME fields.  If the
> remote PGR_TIME is greater than the last replication time then change
> the local copy of the database, otherwise, change the remote end of
> the database.  At this point I don't have a way to know WHICH field
> changed between the two replicas so either I do ROW level replication
> or I check each field.  I check PGR_TIME to determine which field is
> the most current.  Some fine tuning of this process will have to occur
> no doubt.

	Yea, this is indeed the sticky part, and would indeed require some
fine-tunning. Basically, the way I see it, is if the two timestamps for a
single row do not match (or even if the row and therefore timestamp is
missing on one side or the other altogether):
	local ts > remote ts => Local row is exported to remote.
	remote ts > local ts => Remote row is exported to local.
	local ts > last sync time && no remote ts => 
		Local row is inserted on remote.
	local ts < last sync time && no remote ts =>
		Local row is deleted.
	remote ts > last sync time && no local ts =>
		Remote row is inserted on local.
	remote ts < last sync time && no local ts =>
		Remote row is deleted.
where the synchronization process is running on the local machine. By
exported, I mean the local values are sent to the remote machine, and the
row on that remote machine is updated to the local values. How does this
sound?

> 7) The commandline utility, fired off by something like cron, could
> run several times during the day -- command line parameters can be
> implemented to say PUSH ALL CHANGES TO SERVER A, or PULL ALL CHANGES
> FROM SERVER B.

	Or run manually for my purposes. Also, maybe follow it
with a vacuum run on both sides for all databases, as this is going to
potenitally cause lots of table changes that could stand with a cleanup. 

> 1) How far do I go with this?  Do I start manhandling the system catalogs (pg_* tables)?

	Initially, I would just stick to user table data... If you have
changes in triggers and other meta-data/executable code, you are going to
want to make syncs of that stuff manually anyway. At least I would want
to.

> 2) As to #2 and #3 above, I really don't like tools automagically
> changing my tables but at this point I don't see a way around it.  I
> guess this is where the testing comes into play.

	Hence the reason for the seperate table with just a row's
identification and last update time. Only modifications to the synced
database is the update trigger, which should be pretty harmless.

> 3) Security: the replication app will have to have pretty good rights
> to the database so it can add the nessecary functions and triggers,
> modify table schema, etc.

	Just run the sync program as the postgres super user, and there
are no problems. :)

>   So, any "you're insane and should run home to momma" comments?

	No, not at all. Though it probably should be remaned from
replication to synchronization. The former is usually associated with a
continuous stream of updates between the local and remote databases, so
they are almost always in sync, and have a queuing ability if their
connection is loss for span of time as well. Very complex and difficult to
implement, and would require hacking server code. :( Something only Sybase
and Oracle have (as far as I know), and from what I have seen of Sybase's
replication server support (dated by 5yrs) it was a pain to setup and get
running correctly.
	The latter, synchronization, is much more managable, and can still
be useful, especially when you have a large database you want in two
places, mainly for read only purposes at one end or the other, but don't
want to waste the time/bandwidth to move and load the entire database each
time it changes on one end or the other. Same idea as mirroring software
for FTP sites, just transfers the changes, and nothing more.
	I also like the idea of using Python. I have been using it
recently for some database interfaces (to PostgreSQL of course :), and it
is a very nice language to work with. Some worries about performance of
the program though, as python is only an interpreted lanuage, and I have
yet to really be impressed with the speed of execution of my database
interfaces yet.
	Anyway, it sound like a good project, and finally one where I
actually have a clue of what is going on, and the skills to help. So, if
you are interested in pursing this project, I would be more than glad to
help. TTYL.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."                    |
|                                            --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV)   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Ryan Kirkpatrick  |  Boulder, Colorado  |  http://www.rkirkpat.net/   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



************

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: 1.6 $) 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)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:19:19 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA90498
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:18:21 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from bocs170n.black-oak.COM ([38.149.137.131])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA90452
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:17:54 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from dwalker@black-oak.com)
Received: from vmware98 ([151.196.99.113])
          by bocs170n.black-oak.COM (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.1)
          with SMTP id 1999122609164808:7 ;
          Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:16:48 -0500 
Message-ID: <002201bf4fb3$623f0220$b263a8c0@vmware98.walkers.org>
From: "Damond Walker" <dwalker@black-oak.com>
To: "Ryan Kirkpatrick" <pgsql@rkirkpat.net>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] database replication
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 10:10:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on notes01n/BOCS(Release 5.0.1|July 16, 1999) at 12/26/99
	09:16:51 AM,
	Serialize by Router on notes01n/BOCS(Release 5.0.1|July 16, 1999) at 12/26/99
	09:16:54 AM,
	Serialize complete at 12/26/99 09:16:54 AM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: OR

>
>     I too have been thinking about this some over the last year or
>two, just trying to find a quick and easy way to do it. I am not so
>interested in replication, as in synchronization, as in between a desktop
>machine and a laptop, so I can keep the databases on each in sync with
>each other. For this sort of purpose, both the local and remote databases
>would be "idle" at the time of syncing.
>

    I don't think it would matter if the databases are idle or not to be
honest with you.  At any single point in time when you replicate I'd figure
that the database would be in a consistent state.  So, you should be able to
replicate (or sync) a remote database that is in use.  After all, you're
getting a snapshot of the database as it stands at 8:45 PM.  At 8:46 PM it
may be totally different...but the next time syncing takes place those
changes would appear in your local copy.

    The one problem you may run into is if the remote host is running a
large batch process.  It's very likely that you will get 50% of their
changes when you replicate...but then again, that's why you can schedule the
event to work around such things.

>     How about a single, seperate table with the fields of 'database',
>'tablename', 'oid', 'last_changed', that would store the same data as your
>PGR_TIME field. It would be seperated from the actually data tables, and
>therefore would be totally transparent to any database interface
>applications. The 'oid' field would hold each row's OID, a nice, unique
>identification number for the row, while the other fields would tell which
>table and database the oid is in. Then this table can be compared with the
>this table on a remote machine to quickly find updates and changes, then
>each differences can be dealt with in turn.
>

    The problem with OID's is that they are unique at the local level but if
you try and use them between servers you can run into overlap.  Also, if a
database is under heavy use this table could quickly become VERY large.  Add
indexes to this table to help performance and you're taking up even more
disk space.

    Using the PGR_TIME field with an index will allow us to find rows which
have changed VERY quickly.  All we need to do now is somehow programatically
find the primary key for a table so the person setting up replication (or
syncing) doesn't have to have an indepth knowledge of the schema in order to
setup a syncing schedule.

>
>     I like this idea, better than any I have come up with yet. Though,
>how are you going to handle DELETEs?
>

    Oops...how about defining a trigger for this?  With deletion I guess we
would have to move a flag into another table saying we deleted record 'X'
with this primary key from this table.

>
>     Yea, this is indeed the sticky part, and would indeed require some
>fine-tunning. Basically, the way I see it, is if the two timestamps for a
>single row do not match (or even if the row and therefore timestamp is
>missing on one side or the other altogether):
>     local ts > remote ts => Local row is exported to remote.
>     remote ts > local ts => Remote row is exported to local.
>     local ts > last sync time && no remote ts =>
>          Local row is inserted on remote.
>     local ts < last sync time && no remote ts =>
>          Local row is deleted.
>     remote ts > last sync time && no local ts =>
>          Remote row is inserted on local.
>     remote ts < last sync time && no local ts =>
>          Remote row is deleted.
>where the synchronization process is running on the local machine. By
>exported, I mean the local values are sent to the remote machine, and the
>row on that remote machine is updated to the local values. How does this
>sound?
>

    The replication part will be the most complex...that much is for
certain...

    I've been writing systems in Lotus Notes/Domino for the last year or so
and I've grown quite spoiled with what it can do in regards to replication.
It's not real-time but you have to gear your applications to this type of
thing (it's possible to create documents, fire off email to notify people of
changes and have the email arrive before the replicated documents do).
Replicating large Notes/Domino databases takes quite a while....I don't see
any kind of replication or syncing running in a blink of an eye.

    Having said that, a good algo will have to be written to cut down on
network traffic and to keep database conversations down to a minimum.  This
will be appreciated by people with low bandwidth connections I'm sure
(dial-ups, fractional T1's, etc).

>     Or run manually for my purposes. Also, maybe follow it
>with a vacuum run on both sides for all databases, as this is going to
>potenitally cause lots of table changes that could stand with a cleanup.
>

    What would a vacuum do to a system being used by many people?

>     No, not at all. Though it probably should be remaned from
>replication to synchronization. The former is usually associated with a
>continuous stream of updates between the local and remote databases, so
>they are almost always in sync, and have a queuing ability if their
>connection is loss for span of time as well. Very complex and difficult to
>implement, and would require hacking server code. :( Something only Sybase
>and Oracle have (as far as I know), and from what I have seen of Sybase's
>replication server support (dated by 5yrs) it was a pain to setup and get
>running correctly.

    It could probably be named either way...but the one thing I really don't
want to do is start hacking server code.  The PostgreSQL people have enough
to do without worrying about trying to meld anything I've done to their
server.   :)

    Besides, I like the idea of having it operate as a stand-alone product.
The only PostgreSQL feature we would require would be triggers and
plpgsql...what was the earliest version of PostgreSQL that supported
plpgsql?  Even then I don't see the triggers being that complex to boot.

>     I also like the idea of using Python. I have been using it
>recently for some database interfaces (to PostgreSQL of course :), and it
>is a very nice language to work with. Some worries about performance of
>the program though, as python is only an interpreted lanuage, and I have
>yet to really be impressed with the speed of execution of my database
>interfaces yet.

    The only thing we'd need for Python is the Python extensions for
PostgreSQL...which in turn requires libpq and that's about it.  So, it
should be able to run on any platform supported by Python and libpq.  Using
TK for the interface components will require NT people to get additional
software from the 'net.  At least it did with older version of Windows
Python.  Unix folks should be happy....assuming they have X running on the
machine doing the replication or syncing.  Even then I wrote a curses based
Python interface awhile back which allows buttons, progress bars, input
fields, etc (I called it tinter and it's available at
http://iximd.com/~dwalker).  It's a simple interface and could probably be
cleaned up a bit but it works.  :)

>     Anyway, it sound like a good project, and finally one where I
>actually have a clue of what is going on, and the skills to help. So, if
>you are interested in pursing this project, I would be more than glad to
>help. TTYL.
>


    That would be a Good Thing.  Have webspace somewhere?  If I can get
permission from the "powers that be" at the office I could host a website on
our (Domino) webserver.

                Damond


************

From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sun Dec 26 19:11:48 1999
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA26661
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:11:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA14959;
	Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:08:15 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:07:27 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14820
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:06:28 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14749
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:05:39 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from rkirkpat@rkirkpat.net)
Received: from [192.168.3.100] ([12.74.72.56])
          by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134)
          with ESMTP id <19991227010506.WJVW1914@[12.74.72.56]>;
          Mon, 27 Dec 1999 01:05:06 +0000
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 18:05:02 -0700 (MST)
From: Ryan Kirkpatrick <pgsql@rkirkpat.net>
X-Sender: rkirkpat@excelsior.rkirkpat.net
To: Damond Walker <dwalker@black-oak.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] database replication
In-Reply-To: <002201bf4fb3$623f0220$b263a8c0@vmware98.walkers.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9912261742550.7666-100000@excelsior.rkirkpat.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: OR

On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, Damond Walker wrote:

> >     How about a single, seperate table with the fields of 'database',
> >'tablename', 'oid', 'last_changed', that would store the same data as your
> >PGR_TIME field. It would be seperated from the actually data tables, and
...
>     The problem with OID's is that they are unique at the local level but if
> you try and use them between servers you can run into overlap.  

	Yea, forgot about that point, but became dead obvious once you
mentioned it. Boy, I feel stupid now. :)

>     Using the PGR_TIME field with an index will allow us to find rows which
> have changed VERY quickly.  All we need to do now is somehow programatically
> find the primary key for a table so the person setting up replication (or
> syncing) doesn't have to have an indepth knowledge of the schema in order to
> setup a syncing schedule.

	Hmm... Yea, maybe look to see which field(s) has a primary, unique
index on it? Then use those field(s) as a primary key. Just require that
any table to be synchronized to have some set of fields that uniquely
identify each row. Either that, or add another field to each table with
our own, cross system consistent, identification system. Don't know which
would be more efficient and easier to work with.
	The former could potentially get sticky if it takes a lots of
fields to generate a unique key value, but has the smallest effect on the
table to be synced. The latter could be difficult to keep straight between
systems (local vs. remote), and would require a trigger on inserts to
generate a new, unique id number, that does not exist locally or
remotely (nasty issue there), but would remove the uniqueness
requirement.

>     Oops...how about defining a trigger for this?  With deletion I guess we
> would have to move a flag into another table saying we deleted record 'X'
> with this primary key from this table.

	Or, according to my logic below, if a row is missing on one side
or the other, then just compare the remaining row's timestamp to the last
synchronization time (stored in a seperate table/db elsewhere). The
results of the comparsion and the state of row existences tell one if the
row was inserted or deleted since the last sync, and what should be done
to perform the sync.

> >     Yea, this is indeed the sticky part, and would indeed require some
> >fine-tunning. Basically, the way I see it, is if the two timestamps for a
> >single row do not match (or even if the row and therefore timestamp is
> >missing on one side or the other altogether):
> >     local ts > remote ts => Local row is exported to remote.
> >     remote ts > local ts => Remote row is exported to local.
> >     local ts > last sync time && no remote ts =>
> >          Local row is inserted on remote.
> >     local ts < last sync time && no remote ts =>
> >          Local row is deleted.
> >     remote ts > last sync time && no local ts =>
> >          Remote row is inserted on local.
> >     remote ts < last sync time && no local ts =>
> >          Remote row is deleted.
> >where the synchronization process is running on the local machine. By
> >exported, I mean the local values are sent to the remote machine, and the
> >row on that remote machine is updated to the local values. How does this
> >sound?

>     Having said that, a good algo will have to be written to cut down on
> network traffic and to keep database conversations down to a minimum.  This
> will be appreciated by people with low bandwidth connections I'm sure
> (dial-ups, fractional T1's, etc).

	Of course! In reflection, the assigned identification number I
mentioned above might be the best then, instead of having to transfer the
entire set of key fields back and forth.

>     What would a vacuum do to a system being used by many people?

	Probably lock them out of tables while they are vacuumed... Maybe
not really required in the end, possibly optional?

>     It could probably be named either way...but the one thing I really don't
> want to do is start hacking server code.  The PostgreSQL people have enough
> to do without worrying about trying to meld anything I've done to their
> server.   :)

	Yea, they probably would appreciate that. They already have enough
on thier plate for 7.x as it is! :)

>     Besides, I like the idea of having it operate as a stand-alone product.
> The only PostgreSQL feature we would require would be triggers and
> plpgsql...what was the earliest version of PostgreSQL that supported
> plpgsql?  Even then I don't see the triggers being that complex to boot.

	No, provided that we don't do the identification number idea
(which the more I think about it, probably will not work). As for what
version support plpgsql, I don't know, one of the more hard-core pgsql
hackers can probably tell us that.

>     The only thing we'd need for Python is the Python extensions for
> PostgreSQL...which in turn requires libpq and that's about it.  So, it
> should be able to run on any platform supported by Python and libpq.  

	Of course. If it ran on NT as well as Linux/Unix, that would be
even better. :)

> Unix folks should be happy....assuming they have X running on the
> machine doing the replication or syncing.  Even then I wrote a curses
> based Python interface awhile back which allows buttons, progress
> bars, input fields, etc (I called it tinter and it's available at
> http://iximd.com/~dwalker).  It's a simple interface and could
> probably be cleaned up a bit but it works.  :)

	Why would we want any type of GUI (X11 or curses) for this sync
program. I imagine just a command line program with a few options (local
machine, remote machine, db name, etc...), and nothing else.
	Though I will take a look at your curses interface, as I have been
wanting to make a curses interface to a few db interfaces I have, in a
simple as manner as possible.

>     That would be a Good Thing.  Have webspace somewhere?  If I can get
> permission from the "powers that be" at the office I could host a website on
> our (Domino) webserver.

	Yea, I got my own web server (www.rkirkpat.net) with 1GB+ of disk
space available, sitting on a decent speed DSL. Even can setup of a
virtual server if we want (i.e. pgsync.rkirkpat.net :). CVS repository,
email lists, etc... possible with some effort (and time). 
	So, where should we start? TTYL.

	PS. The current pages on my web site are very out of date at the
moment (save for the pgsql information). I hope to have updated ones up
within the week. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."                    |
|                                            --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV)   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Ryan Kirkpatrick  |  Boulder, Colorado  |  http://www.rkirkpat.net/   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


************

From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Mon Dec 27 12:33:32 1999
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA24817
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:33:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA53391;
	Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:29:02 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:28:38 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA53248
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:27:40 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from gtv.ca (h139-142-238-17.cg.fiberone.net [139.142.238.17])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA53170
	for <pgsql-hackers@hub.org>; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:26:40 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from aaron@genisys.ca)
Received: from stilborne (24.67.90.252.ab.wave.home.com [24.67.90.252])
	by gtv.ca (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA01200
	for <pgsql-hackers@hub.org>; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:36:39 -0700
From: "Aaron J. Seigo" <aaron@gtv.ca>
To: pgsql-hackers@hub.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] database replication
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:23:19 -0700
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28]
Content-Type: text/plain
References: <199912271135.TAA10184@netrinsics.com>
In-Reply-To: <199912271135.TAA10184@netrinsics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <99122711245600.07929@stilborne>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: OR

hi..

> Before anyone starts implementing any database replication, I'd strongly
> suggest doing some research, first:
> 
> http://sybooks.sybase.com:80/onlinebooks/group-rs/rsg1150e/rs_admin/@Generic__BookView;cs=default;ts=default

good idea, but perhaps sybase isn't the best study case.. here's some extremely
detailed online coverage of Oracle 8i's replication, from the oracle online
library:

http://bach.towson.edu/oracledocs/DOC/server803/A54651_01/toc.htm

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
Sys Admin

************

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: 1.6 $) 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)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:32:24 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA85771
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:31:27 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from sandman.acadiau.ca (dcurrie@sandman.acadiau.ca [131.162.129.111])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA85234
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:31:10 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from dcurrie@sandman.acadiau.ca)
Received: (from dcurrie@localhost)
	by sandman.acadiau.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) id GAA18698;
	Thu, 30 Dec 1999 06:30:58 -0400
From: Duane Currie <dcurrie@sandman.acadiau.ca>
Message-Id: <199912301030.GAA18698@sandman.acadiau.ca>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] database replication
In-Reply-To: <OFD38C9424.B391F434-ON85256851.0054F41A@black-oak.COM> from "DWalker@black-oak.com" at "Dec 24, 99 10:27:59 am"
To: DWalker@black-oak.com
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:30:58 +0000 (AST)
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL39 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Status: OR

Hi Guys,

Now for one of my REALLY rare posts.
Having done a little bit of distributed data systems, I figured I'd
pitch in a couple cents worth.

> 2) The replication system will need to add at least one field to each 
>    table in each database that needs to be re plicated. &nbsp;This 
>    field will be a date/time stamp which identifies the &quot; last 
>    update&quot; of the record. &nbsp;This field will be called PGR_TIME 
>    for la ck of a better name. &nbsp;Because this field will be used 
>    from within programs and triggers it can be longer so as to not 
>    mistake it for a user field.

I just started reading this thread, but I figured I'd throw in a couple
suggestions for distributed data control  (a few idioms I've had to
deal with b4):
	- Never use time (not reliable from system to system).  Use
	  a version number of some sort that can stay consistent across
	  all replicas

	  This way, if a system's time is or goes out of wack, it doesn't
	  cause your database to disintegrate, and it's easier to track
	  conflicts (see below.  If using time, the algorithm gets
	  nightmarish)

	- On an insert, set to version 1

	- On an update, version++

	- On a delete, mark deleted, and add a delete stub somewhere for the
	  replicator process to deal with in sync'ing the databases.

	- If two records have the same version but different data, there's
	  a conflict.  A few choices:
	  	1.  Pick one as the correct one (yuck!! invisible data loss)
		2.  Store both copies, pick one as current, and alert 
		    database owner of the conflict, so they can deal with
		    it "manually."
		3.  If possible, some conflicts can be merged.  If a disjoint
		    set of fields were changed in each instance, these changes
		    may both be applied and the record merged.  (Problem:
		    takes a lot more space.  Requires a version number for
		    every field, or persistent storage of some old records.
		    However, this might help the "which fields changed" issue
		    you were talking about in #6)

	- A unique id across all systems should exist (or something that
	  effectively simulates a unique id.  Maybe a composition of the
	  originating oid (from the insert) and the originating database
	  (oid of the database's record?) might do it.  Store this as
	  an extra field in every record.  
	  
	  (Two extra fieldss so far: 'unique id' and 'version')

I do like your approach:  triggers and a separate process. (Maintainable!! :)

Anyway, just figured I'd throw in a few suggestions,
Duane

************

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: 1.6 $) 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)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-patches@hub.org)
Received: by hub.org (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09 00:29:32)); Sun, 02 Jan 2000 23:38:34 +0000 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13624
	for pgsql-patches-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:37:36 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-patches@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from falla.videotron.net (falla.videotron.net [205.151.222.106])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13560
	for <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:37:02 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from P.Marchesso@Videotron.ca)
Received: from Videotron.ca ([207.253.210.234])
	by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8)
	with ESMTP id <0FNQ000TEST8VI@falla.videotron.net> for pgsql-patches@postgresql.org; Sun,
	2 Jan 2000 23:37:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 23:39:23 -0500
From: Philippe Marchesseault <P.Marchesso@Videotron.ca>
Subject: [PATCHES] Distributed PostgreSQL!
To: pgsql-patches@postgreSQL.org
Message-id: <387027FB.EB88D757@Videotron.ca>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.11 i586)
Content-type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Boundary_(ID_GeYGc69fE1/bkYLTPwOGFg)"
X-Accept-Language: en
Sender: owner-pgsql-patches@postgreSQL.org
Precedence: bulk
Status: ORr

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_GeYGc69fE1/bkYLTPwOGFg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hi all!

Here is a small patch to make postgres a distributed database. By
distributed I mean that you can have the same copy of the database on N
different machines and keep them all in sync.
It does not improve performances unless you distribute your clients in a
sensible manner. It does not allow you to do parallel selects.

The support page is : pages.infinit.net/daemon  and soon to be in
english.

The patch was tested with RedHat Linux 6.0 on Intel with kernel 2.2.11.
Only two machines where used so i'm not competely sure that it works
with more than two. -But it should-

I would like to know if somebody else is interested in this otherwise
i'm probably not gonna keep it growing. So please reply me to my e-mail
(P.Marchesso@videotron.ca) to give me an idea of the amount of people
interested in this.

Thanks all.

Philippe Marchesseault

--
It's not the size of the dog in the fight,
but the size of the fight in the dog.
                        -Archie Griffen



--Boundary_(ID_GeYGc69fE1/bkYLTPwOGFg)
Content-type: application/octet-stream; name=replicator-0.1.tgz
Content-disposition: attachment; filename=replicator-0.1.tgz
Content-transfer-encoding: base64

[encoded data, 18000 characters]
8/h5/Dx+Hj+Pn8fP/9fP/wKykq3cAMgAAA==

--Boundary_(ID_GeYGc69fE1/bkYLTPwOGFg)--

************


From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Mon Jan  3 13:47:07 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA23987
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:47:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA03234;
	Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:39:56 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:39:49 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03050
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:38:50 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from ara.zf.jcu.cz (zakkr@ara.zf.jcu.cz [160.217.161.4])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02975
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:38:05 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from zakkr@zf.jcu.cz)
Received: from localhost (zakkr@localhost)
	by ara.zf.jcu.cz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id UAA19297;
	Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:23:35 +0100
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:23:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Karel Zak - Zakkr <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
To: P.Marchesso@videotron.ca
cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: [HACKERS] replicator
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000103194931.19115A-100000@ara.zf.jcu.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Status: OR


Hi,

I look at your (Philippe's) replicator, but I don't good understand
your replication concept.


    node1:  SQL --IPC--> node-broker
                       |
                      TCP/IP
                       |
                    master-node --IPC--> replikator
                                         |   |   |
                                           libpq
                                         |   |   |
                                       node2 node..n     

(Is it right picture?)

If I good understand, all nodes make connection to master node and data
replicate "replicator" on this master node. But it (master node) is very
critical space in this concept - If master node not work replication for 
*all* nodes is lost. Hmm.. but I want use replication for high available
applications...

IMHO is problem with node registration / authentification on master node.
Why concept is not more upright? As:

	SQL --IPC--> node-replicator
			|  |  | 
		     via libpq send data to all nodes with
                     current client/backend auth.

	(not exist any master node, all nodes have connection to all nodes)	


Use replicator as external proces and copy data from SQL to this replicator
via IPC is (your) very good idea. 

							Karel


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>              http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

Docs:        http://docs.linux.cz                    (big docs archive)	
Kim Project: http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/kim/        (process manager)
FTP:         ftp://ftp2.zf.jcu.cz/users/zakkr/        (C/ncurses/PgSQL)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


************

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: 1.6 $) 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)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:17:58 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09856
	for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:17:17 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from ara.zf.jcu.cz (zakkr@ara.zf.jcu.cz [160.217.161.4])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09763
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:16:43 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from zakkr@zf.jcu.cz)
Received: from localhost (zakkr@localhost)
	by ara.zf.jcu.cz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA31673;
	Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:02:06 +0100
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:02:06 +0100 (CET)
From: Karel Zak - Zakkr <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
To: Philippe Marchesseault <P.Marchesso@Videotron.ca>
cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] replicator
In-Reply-To: <38714B6F.2DECAEC0@Videotron.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000104162226.27234D-100000@ara.zf.jcu.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: OR


On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Philippe Marchesseault wrote:

> So it could become:
> 
> SQL --IPC--> node-replicator
>                            |   |   |
>       via TCP send statements to each node
>                       replicator (on local node)
>                            |
>          via libpq send data to
>         current (local) backend.
> 
> >  (not exist any master node, all nodes have connection to all nodes)
> 
> Exactly, if the replicator dies only the node dies, everything else keeps
> working.


 Hi,

 I a little explore replication conception on Oracle and Sybase (in manuals).
(Know anyone some interesting links or publication about it?)

 Firstly, I sure, untimely is write replication to PgSQL now, if we
haven't exactly conception for it. It need more suggestion from more
developers. We need firstly answers for next qestion:

	1/ How replication concept choose for PG?
	2/ How manage transaction for nodes? (and we need define any 
           replication protocol for this)
	3/ How involve replication in current PG transaction code?

My idea (dream:-) is replication that allow you use full read-write on all
nodes and replication which use current transaction method in PG - not is
difference between more backends on one host or more backend on more hosts
- it makes "global transaction consistency".

Now is transaction manage via ICP (one host), my dream is alike manage 
this transaction, but between more host via TCP. (And make optimalization 
for this - transfer commited data/commands only.)


Any suggestion?


-------------------
Note:
 
(transaction oriented replication)

 Sybase - I. model (only one node is read-write) 

	 primary SQL data (READ-WRITE)
                |
	 replication agent (transaction log monitoring)
		|
	 primary distribution server (one or more repl. servers)
	        |               /  |  \
                |            nodes (READ-ONLY)
                |
         secondary dist. server
                          /  |  \
                       nodes (READ-ONLY)


       If primary SQL is read-write and the other nodes *read-only* 
       => system good work if connection is disable (data are save to
          replication-log and if connection is available log is write 
	  to node).   


 Sybase - II. model (all nodes read-write)

     	    SQL data 1 --->--+                        NODE I.
                |            |
                ^            |
	        |     replication agent 1 (transaction log monitoring)
                V        |
		|        V
                |        |
         replication server 1
                |
		^
                V
                |
         replication server 2                        NODE II.
                |         |
                ^         +-<-->--- SQL data 2
                |                    |                      
               replcation agent 2 -<--



Sorry, I not sure if I re-draw previous picture total good..

								Karel   


	
    


************

From pgsql-hackers-owner+M3133@hub.org Fri Jun  9 15:02:25 2000
Received: from hub.org (root@hub.org [216.126.84.1])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA22319
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:02:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hub.org (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e59IsET81137;
	Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:54:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ultra2.quiknet.com (ultra2.quiknet.com [207.183.249.4])
	by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e59IrQT80458
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 13302 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2000 18:53:21 -0000
Received: from 18.67.tc1.oro.pmpool.quiknet.com (HELO quiknet.com) (pecondon@207.231.67.18)
  by ultra2.quiknet.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2000 18:53:21 -0000
Message-ID: <39413D08.A6BDC664@quiknet.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:52:57 -0700
From: Paul Condon <pecondon@quiknet.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ohp@pyrenet.fr, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: [HACKERS] Re: Big project, please help
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org
Status: OR

Two way replication on a single "table" is availabe in Lotus Notes. In
Notes, every record has a time-stamp, which contains the time of the
last update. (It also has a creation timestamp.) During replication,
timestamps are compared at the row/record level, and compared with the
timestamp of the last replication. If, for corresponding rows in two
replicas, the timestamp of one row is newer than the last replication,
the contents of this newer row is copied to the other replica. But if
both of the corresponding rows have newer timestamps, there is a
problem. The Lotus Notes solution is to:
  1. send a replication conflict message to the Notes Administrator,
which message contains full copies of both rows.
  2. copy the newest row over the less new row in the replicas.
  3. there is a mechanism for the Administrator to reverse the default
decision in 2, if the semantics of the message history, or off-line
investigation indicates that the wrong decision was made.

In practice, the Administrator is not overwhelmed with replication
conflict messages because updates usually only originate at the site
that originally created the row. Or updates fill only fields that were
originally 'TBD'. The full logic is perhaps more complicated than I have
described here, but it is already complicated enough to give you an idea
of what you're really being asked to do. I am not aware of a supplier of
relational database who really supports two way replication at the level
that Notes supports it, but Notes isn't a relational database.

The difficulty of the position that you appear to be in is that
management might believe that the full problem is solved in brand X
RDBMS, and you will have trouble convincing management that this is not
really true.


From pgsql-hackers-owner+M2401@hub.org Tue May 23 12:19:54 2000
Received: from news.tht.net (news.hub.org [216.126.91.242])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA28410
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:19:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hub.org (majordom@hub.org [216.126.84.1])
	by news.tht.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAB53304;
	Tue, 23 May 2000 12:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M2401@hub.org)
Received: from gwineta.repas.de (gwineta.repas.de [193.101.49.1])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA39896
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:57:31 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from kardos@repas-aeg.de)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
	by gwineta.repas.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA27154
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:57:23 +0200
Received: from dragon.dr.repas.de(172.30.48.206) by gwineta.repas.de via smap (V2.1)
	id xma027101; Tue, 23 May 00 17:56:20 +0200
Received: from kardos.dr.repas.de ([172.30.48.153])
  by dragon.dr.repas.de (UCX V4.2-21C, OpenVMS V6.2 Alpha);
	Tue, 23 May 2000 17:57:24 +0200
Message-ID: <010201bfc4cf$7334d5a0$99301eac@Dr.repas.de>
From: "Kardos, Dr. Andreas" <kardos@repas-aeg.de>
To: "Todd M. Shrider" <tshrider@varesearch.com>,
        <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10005180846290.15739-100000@silicon.su.valinux.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] failing over with postgresql
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:56:20 +0200
Organization: repas AEG Automation GmbH
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org
Status: OR

For a SCADA system (Supervisory Control and Data Akquisition) which consists
of one  master and one hot-standby server I have implemented such a
solution. To these UNIX servers client workstations are connected (NT and/or
UNIX). The database client programms run on client and server side.

When developing this approach I had to goals in mind:
1) Not to get dependend on the PostgreSQL sources since they change very
dynamically.
2) Not to get dependend on the fe/be protocol  since there are discussions
around to change it.

So the approach is quite simple: Forward all database requests to the
standby server on TCP/IP level.

On both servers the postmaster listens on port 5433 and not on 5432. On
standard port 5432 my program listens instead. This program forks twice for
every incomming connection. The first instance forwards all packets from the
frontend to both backends. The second instance receives the packets from all
backends and forwards the packets from the master backend to the frontend.
So a frontend running on a server machine connects to port 5432 of
localhost.

On the client machine runs another program (on NT as a service). This
program forks for every incomming connections twice. The first instance
forwards all packets to port 5432 of the current master server and the
second instance forwards the packets from the master server to the frontend.

During standby computer startup the database of the master computer is
dumped, zipped, copied to the standby computer, unzipped and loaded into
that database.
If a standby startup took place, all client connections are aborted to allow
a login into the standby database. The frontends need to reconnect in this
case. So the database of the standby computer is always in sync.

The disadvantage of this method is that a query cannot be canceled in the
standby server since the request key of this connections gets lost. But we
can live with that.

Both programms are able to run on Unix and on (native!) NT. On NT threads
are created instead of forked processes.

This approach is simple, but it is effective and it works.

We hope to survive this way until real replication will be implemented in
PostgreSQL.

Andreas Kardos

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Todd M. Shrider <tshrider@varesearch.com>
An: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Mai 2000 17:48
Betreff: [HACKERS] failing over with postgresql


>
> is anyone working on or have working a fail-over implentation for the
> postgresql stuff. i'd be interested in seeing if and how any might be
> dealing with just general issues as well as the database syncing issues.
>
> we are looking to do this with heartbeat and lvs in mind. also if anyone
> is load ballancing their databases that would be cool to talk about to.
>
> ---
> Todd M. Shrider VA Linux Systems
> Systems Engineer
> tshrider@valinux.com www.valinux.com
>


From pgsql-hackers-owner+M3662@postgresql.org Tue Jan 23 16:23:34 2001
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA04456
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:23:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0NLKf004705;
	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:20:41 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M3662@postgresql.org)
Received: from sectorbase2.sectorbase.com ([208.48.122.131])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0NLAe003753
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:10:40 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM)
Received: by sectorbase2.sectorbase.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <DG1W4Q8F>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:49:07 -0800
Message-ID: <8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D32AF@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com>
From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
To: "'dom@idealx.com'" <dom@idealx.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: MySQL and BerkleyDB (fwd)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:10:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: ORr

>   I had thought that the pre-commit information could be stored in an
> auxiliary table by the middleware program ; we would then have
> to re-implement some sort of higher-level WAL (I thought of the list
> of the commands performed in the current transaction, with a sequence
> number for each of them that would guarantee correct ordering between
> concurrent transactions in case of a REDO). But I fear I am missing

This wouldn't work for READ COMMITTED isolation level.
But why do you want to log commands into WAL where each modification
is already logged in, hm, correct order?
Well, it has sense if you're looking for async replication but
you need not in two-phase commit for this and should aware about
problems with READ COMMITTED isolevel.

Back to two-phase commit - it's easiest part of work required for
distributed transaction processing.
Currently we place single commit record to log and transaction is
committed when this record (and so all other transaction records)
is on disk.
Two-phase commit:

1. For 1st phase we'll place into log "prepared-to-commit" record
   and this phase will be accomplished after record is flushed on disk.
   At this point transaction may be committed at any time because of
   all its modifications are logged. But it still may be rolled back
   if this phase failed on other sites of distributed system.

2. When all sites are prepared to commit we'll place "committed"
   record into log. No need to flush it because of in the event of
   crash for all "prepared" transactions recoverer will have to
   communicate other sites to know their statuses anyway.

That's all! It is really hard to implement distributed lock- and
communication- managers but there is no problem with logging two
records instead of one. Period.

Vadim

From pgsql-hackers-owner+M3665@postgresql.org Tue Jan 23 17:05:26 2001
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA05972
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:05:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0NM31008120;
	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:03:01 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M3665@postgresql.org)
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.navpoint.com [162.33.245.46])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0NLsU007188
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:54:30 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA05300;
	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:53:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200101232153.QAA05300@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: AW: Re: MySQL and BerkleyDB (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D32AF@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com>
	"from Mikheev, Vadim at Jan 23, 2001 01:10:34 pm"
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:53:53 -0500 (EST)
CC: "'dom@idealx.com'" <dom@idealx.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL77 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR

[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> >   I had thought that the pre-commit information could be stored in an
> > auxiliary table by the middleware program ; we would then have
> > to re-implement some sort of higher-level WAL (I thought of the list
> > of the commands performed in the current transaction, with a sequence
> > number for each of them that would guarantee correct ordering between
> > concurrent transactions in case of a REDO). But I fear I am missing
> 
> This wouldn't work for READ COMMITTED isolation level.
> But why do you want to log commands into WAL where each modification
> is already logged in, hm, correct order?
> Well, it has sense if you're looking for async replication but
> you need not in two-phase commit for this and should aware about
> problems with READ COMMITTED isolevel.
> 

I believe the issue here is that while SERIALIZABLE ISOLATION means all
queries can be run serially, our default is READ COMMITTED, meaning that
open transactions see committed transactions, even if the transaction
committed after our transaction started.  (FYI, see my chapter on
transactions for help,  http://www.postgresql.org/docs/awbook.html.)

To do higher-level WAL, you would have to record not only the queries,
but the other queries that were committed at the start of each command
in your transaction.

Ideally, you could number every commit by its XID your log, and then
when processing the query, pass the "committed" transaction ids that
were visible at the time each command began.

In other words, you can replay the queries in transaction commit order,
except that you have to have some transactions committed at specific
points while other transactions are open, i.e.:

XID	Open XIDS	Query
500			UPDATE t SET col = 3;
501	500		BEGIN;
501	500		UPDATE t SET col = 4;
501			UPDATE t SET col = 5;
501			COMMIT;

This is a silly example, but it shows that 500 must commit after the
first command in transaction 501, but before the second command in the
transaction.  This is because UPDATE t SET col = 5 actually sees the
changes made by transaction 500 in READ COMMITTED isolation level.

I am not advocating this.  I think WAL is a better choice.  I just
wanted to outline how replaying the queries in commit order is 
insufficient.

> Back to two-phase commit - it's easiest part of work required for
> distributed transaction processing.
> Currently we place single commit record to log and transaction is
> committed when this record (and so all other transaction records)
> is on disk.
> Two-phase commit:
> 
> 1. For 1st phase we'll place into log "prepared-to-commit" record
>    and this phase will be accomplished after record is flushed on disk.
>    At this point transaction may be committed at any time because of
>    all its modifications are logged. But it still may be rolled back
>    if this phase failed on other sites of distributed system.
> 
> 2. When all sites are prepared to commit we'll place "committed"
>    record into log. No need to flush it because of in the event of
>    crash for all "prepared" transactions recoverer will have to
>    communicate other sites to know their statuses anyway.
> 
> That's all! It is really hard to implement distributed lock- and
> communication- managers but there is no problem with logging two
> records instead of one. Period.

Great.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

