On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 07:20:37PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote: > > So you can do lossless failover. Currently there is no good > solution for this.
Indeed. Getting lossless failover would be excellent. I understand David's worry (having had those arguments more times than I care to admit), but if people don't want to spend the money on the extra machine that can't be queried, they can use another solution for the time being. The big missing piece is lossless failover. People are currently doing it with DRBD, various clustering things, &c., and those are complicated to set up and maintain. (As I've told more than one person looking at it, there is a risk that you'll actually make your installation complicated enough that you'll make it _less_ reliable. I have some bitter personal experiences with this effect, and I know some others on this list do as well.) A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
