Jim C. Nasby wrote: > 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.
OK, I did break it out somewhat for clarity. Let me know how it looks now. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
