Hannu Krosing wrote: > > OK. I am still feeling that data partitioning is like master/slave > > replication because you have to get that read-only copy to the other > > server. If you split things up so data sets resided on only one > > machine, you are right that would not be replication, but do people do > > that? If so, it is almost another solution. > > People do that in cases where there is high write loads ("high" as in > "not 10+ times less than reads") and just replicating the RO copies > would be prohibitively expensive in either network, cpu or memory terms.
OK, as Markus suggested, I have moved Data Partitioning down to the bottom, and mentioned it as only optionally keeping a read-only copy on each server. Is this better? > > > Several single-master systems? C'mon! Pgpool simply implements the most > > > simplistic form of multi-master replication. > > In what way is pgpool multimaster ? last time I looked it did nothing > but applying DML to several databses. i.e. it is not replication at all, > or at least it is masterless, unless we think of the pgpool process > itself as the _single_ master :) I have remove the mention of "multi-master" from query broadcast. > > > Just because you can access > > > the single databases inside the cluster doesn't make it less > > > Multi-Master, does it? > > > > OK, changed to "Multi-Master Replication Using Query Broadcasting". > > I think this gives completely wrong picture of what pgpool does. > > How about just "Query Broadcasting" ? > Done. -- 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 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings