On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 09:56 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > Is it a common use case that people have more than 3 separate > > servers for one application, which is where the difference shows > > itself. > > I don't know how common it is, but we replicate circuit court data > to two machines each at two sites. That way a disaster which took > out one building would leave us with the ability to run from the > other building and still take a machine out of the production mix > for scheduled maintenance or to survive a single-server failure at > the other site. Of course, there's no way we would make that > replication synchronous, and we're replicating from dozens of source > machines -- so I don't know if you can even count our configuration. > > Still, the fact that we're replicating to two machines each at two > sites and that is the same example which came to mind for Robert, > suggests that perhaps it isn't *that* bizarre.
Hoping that you mean "bizarre" as "less common". I don't find Robert's example in any way strange and respect his viewpoint. I am looking for ways to simplify the specification so that we aren't burdened with a level of complexity we can avoid in the majority if cases. If we only need complex configuration to support a small minority of cases, then I'd say we don't need that (yet). Adding that support later will make it clearer what the additional cost/benefit is. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
