On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term > 'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a > well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant to > avoid that term. <snip> > IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a synchronous replication for a > 'Shared Disk Fail Over'. It's not replication, because there's no replica.
Those to statements are at odds with each other, at least based on everyone I've ever talked to in a commercial setting. People will use terms like 'replication', 'HA' or 'clustering' fairly interchangably. Usually what these folks want is some kind of high-availability solution. A few are more concerned with scalability. Sometimes it's a combination of both. That's why I think it's good for the chapter to deal with both aspects of this. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
