Postgresql 复制：londiste 与 slony
有没有人有很多使用 londiste 的经验？它是用于 postgres 复制的 slony 的替代方案。我一直在用头撞墙，试图让懒惰以我需要的方式工作，并正在寻找任何更简单的方法。
londiste 似乎是一个不错的选择，但在我决定更换之前，我想看看是否有人有任何优点/缺点。
Has anyone had much experience using londiste? It is an alternative to slony for postgres replication. I have been beating my head against the wall trying to get slony to work the way I need it and was looking for any easier way.
londiste seems like a good alternative, but I wanted to see if anyone has any pros/cons before I commit to a switch.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
我已经使用了这两种方法，并且根据我的要求，Londiste 是一个不错的选择。
我们有一个简单的设置，其中从临时服务器复制表的子集，以通过大批量更新和插入以及在 postgres 8.4、Centos 5.5 和 skytools 2 上运行的日内较小更新进行生存，我们还使用它作为队列组件基于事件的行动。以前我使用过 1.* 系列的 Slony，所以我无法对更新的版本发表评论。
Londiste 的一些优点
一些缺点
我将限制我对 Slony 的评论，因为它的设置和管理很复杂，而且我使用的版本在对网络问题的容忍度方面并不理想Londiste 但可以用于级联复制和切换用例。
I have used both and for my requirements Londiste is a good option.
We have a simple set up where a subset of tables is replicated from a staging server to live by large batch updates and insert and also intraday smaller updates running on postgres 8.4 and Centos 5.5 and skytools 2 and we also use it as the queue component for event based actions. Previously I have used Slony from the 1.* series so I can't comment on more recent versions.
Some Pros for Londiste
Some Cons
I will limit my comment on Slony to my experience that it was complex to set up and administer and the version I used did not compare favourably on tolerance to network issues with Londiste but could have been used for cascading replication and switchover use cases.
正如之前提到的，Londiste 确实更容易使用。从 2012 年 3 月发布的版本 3 开始，Londiste 支持级联复制和故障转移/切换，以及许多其他新的酷功能。
As mentioned before, Londiste is simpler to use, indeed. And as of version 3, released in March 2012, Londiste supports cascading replication and failover/switchover, as well as a bunch of other new cool features.