Re: Replication in databases
- From: Christoph Rupp <cruppstahl@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 17, 8:21 am, David BL <davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 17, 5:18 am, Christoph Rupp <cruppst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm implementing my own database, and therefore i was thinking about
the same question. (i have not yet implemented recovery, because
there's so much other stuff to do).
Currently my idea is to send the log over the net, because in my
design i do not log physical pages, instead i just log the modified
key/record items.
I recall your post 6 months ago :)
Are your log records idempotent?
Yes, that was me :)
however, 6 months ago i implemented logging for my first database -
hamsterdb (hamsterdb.com). It's physical logging, writing modified
database pages. hamsterdb is good for embedded devices, but has no
concurrency and really bad support for transactions.
3 months ago i started writing hamsterdb2, which has a high level of
concurrency, full support for transactions and record-level logging
instead of page-level logging. and this is still work in progress.
but you can be sure that sooner or later i will continue asking on
comp.databases.theory strange questions about different transaction
isolation levels and other esoteric stuff :)
.
- References:
- Re: Replication in databases
- From: Christoph Rupp
- Re: Replication in databases
- From: David BL
- Re: Replication in databases
- Prev by Date: Re: Modeling Order Extensions
- Next by Date: Re: Modeling Order Extensions
- Previous by thread: Re: Replication in databases
- Next by thread: Re: Replication in databases
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|