Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > Hi, > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, it is two separate entries now: > > > > http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/high-availability.html > > Yes, that's fine with me.
Good. > > Uh, good point. The title is now "Statement-Based Replication > > Middleware". That doesn't say multi-master, but it doesn't say > > master/slave either. The Sequoia PDF you sent me is very detailed: > > > > > > http://www.continuent.org/uploads/sequoia/Resources/2006-08-15Cecchet_ApacheConAsia2006.pdf > > > > I think we are back to the issue of classification. We have traditional > > master/slave as slony, and multi-master as perhaps pgcluster, and lots > > in between. I am thinking pgpool and sequoia fit in there. I have > > added Sequoia to the Statement-Based Replication Middleware section. > > I'll look into that shortly, but I think Emmanuel can better categorize > sequoia, I've CCed him. I'd certainly categorize it as Multi Master > Replication (like pgpool, only that it's a poor implementation). OK, let's see what they say. Right now, middleware is a separate section. > Good, that sounds better for me. > > There's only a typo at the very end: > > "..conflict resolution rules. rules." OK, fixed, thanks. > > Uh, if the data isn't partitioned, what value is there to hitting > > multiple servers, for single query? I am confused. > > Right, makes only sense for complex queries, i.e. when having multiple > seq scans and/or joins. The executor would have to be super clever for > such things to happen. Just forget about my comment. Oh, I see, splitting I/O load even with multiple copies --- interesting, but seems too far out for this documentation, as you suggested above. -- 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 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
