I am not so sure of this arrangement's mertis >From HA (High Availability) point of view, the host/server is a single point of failure which will bring your entire infrastructure down if any of the server hardware components fail.
>From Performance point of view, you have increased the load on your server by 3 folds as all instances would be using your I/O bandwidth to write to secondary storage Given $300 to $400 price of headless servers these days, its much economical to split the workload on three boxes Cheers Medi On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 10:19 -0500, Scott Whitney wrote: > > I've got 3 different database servers (db01, db02 and db03). > > > > I would like to have a WAL standby server that replays logs for all 3 in > > case one goes down, so I can promote that particular server. > > > > Can I do this by installing 3 separate postmasters on this machine? > > Obviously, if 2 went down at the same time, I'd have to do some magic to > > bring up another machine, but I'm not sure that's a concern. > > Yes, that will work. > > -- > Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com > PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin >
