On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Christopher Browne wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes: > > Patrick Welche wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 02:49:30PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> ... > >> > if we are talking two computers sitting next to each other on a switch, > >> > you'd expect those to be low ... but if you were talking about two > >> > seperate geographical locations (and yes, I realize you are adding lag to > >> > the mix with waiting for responses), you'd expect those #s to rise ... > >> > >> Which I thought was the whole point of using a group communication > >> protocol such as spread in postgresql-r. It seemed solved there... > > > > Right, but I think we want to try to do two-phase commit without > > spread. Spread seems overkill for this usage. > > Is there some big demerit to _having_ that "overkill"? If there is no > major price to pay, then I don't see why it isn't reasonable to simply > say "Sure, we'll use that!"
I recall Darren Johnson (who is working on replication with spread) saying that it required a lot of bandwidth in real world scenarios. Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
