Marc G. Fournier wrote:On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Most hopefully this is very discouraging! Connection pools are a nice > > thing and I have used pgpool recently with great success, for pooling > > connections. But attempting to deliver multimaster replication as a > > byproduct of a connection pool isn't going to become an enterprise > > feature. And the more half-baked, half-functional and half-reliable > > replication attempts there are, the harder it will be to finally get a > > real solution being recognized. > > Well, considering we offer _nothing_ for multi-master right now, I think > it is a valuable project.
Connection pooling is *not* multi master ... it doesn't even simulate multi-master ... multi-master, at least as far as I'm aware, means "no point of failure", and connection pooling creates a *single* point of failure ... the pgpool process dies, you've lost all connections to the database ...
I think people are confusing pgpool with pgcluster.
And you wonder where that's coming from, eh? Tatsuo is advertising pgpool as a synchronous replication system suitable for failover. Quoting from the pgpool-1.0 README:
pgpool could be used as a replication server. This allows real-time backuping of the database to avoid disk failures. pgpool sends exactly same query to each PostgreSQL servers to accomplish replication. So pgpool can be regarded as a "synchronous replication server".
Don't get me wrong, as said pgpool works great for the purpose I tested, the pooling. But statements like that are causing the confusion here.
Jan
-- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
