On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:15:03 AM Kevin Grittner wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > If we use WAL in this way, multi-master implies that the data will > > *always* be in a loop. So in any configuration we must be able to > > tell difference between changes made by one node and another. > > Only if you assume that multi-master means identical databases all > replicating the same data to all the others. If I have 72 master > replicating non-conflicting data to one consolidated database, I > consider that to be multi-master, too. > ... > Of course, none of these databases have the same OID for any given > object, and there are numerous different schemas among the > replicating databases, so I need to get to table and column names > before the data is of any use to me. Yes, thats definitely a valid use-case. But that doesn't preclude the other - also not uncommon - use-case where you want to have different master which all contain up2date data.
Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
