Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 16:51 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I feel the shared-* issue splits us up like master/slave and > > > > multi-master splits up > > > > > > No, not quite. To sum up, I'd say the following combinations make sense: > > > > > > sync, multi-master replication on shared-memory cluster (which is much > > > like a super-computer. With shared memory distributing locks does not > > > cost much - beside marketing, there is probably not much sense in > > > calling this a cluster at all). > > > > Wow, how is that different than an multi-CPU server? > > You can't have 1000 cpus :).. You can have 1000 dual core servers.
But does anyone make a shared-memory cluster that can do 1000 cpu's? Sounds like Sequent, but I didn't think anyone was doing this anymore. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
