Hello Bruce,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Uh, to me the issue is something like pgpool and Sequoia, where the
_master_/replication is happening _outside_ the server
Well, you are saying that the controllers are the masters and do
replication. I can see the reasoning behind it: they are the only nodes
which allow write access, seen from the outside.
However, I don't consider these controllers to be masters nor slaves,
because they don't carry a replica of the data. Instead I'm considering
the database nodes which are (synchronously or not) processing the
writing transactions on behalf of the controller to be the masters. They
do all the work and the locking, and they carry the replicated data.
PgCluster (and therefore Cybercluster, too) seem to follow my
definition, as they are advertising themselves as multi-master
replication solutions (even though they only support one single
controller, AFAICT).
I didn't find any self-definition of PgPool's replication feature nor
Sequoias. However, I'd argue that both are generally considered
synchronous multi-master replication solutions as well, even if there's
only one controller.
> vs something
> like Oracle RAC where it is happening inside the server.
..or like Postgres-R :-)
Regards
Markus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
