On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 04:00, Robert Dionne <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Randall Leeds wrote: >> >> keeping cluster information and database metadata up to date around >> the cluster, but that information tends to be small and changes >> infrequently. >> >> However, to me this sounds like a lot of work for something that might >> be better solved using technologies like zeromq, particularly if >> logging all messages is optional. >> >> Anyway, I'm happy to talk about all of this further since I think it's >> kind of fascinating. I've been thinking a lot recently about how flood > > I'm curious, is flood replication what the name implies? Broadcasting? >
I'll throw this at dev@, too. Yes, broadcasting. I've been thinking about alternative checkpoint schemes that take the source and destination host out of the equation and figure out some other way to verify common history. I imagine it's going to have to involve a hash tree. With the ability to resolve common history without having *directly* exchanged checkpoints, hosts could receive incremental update batches from different hosts if the replication graph changes over time. Anyway, it's just a little infant of a thought, but I think it's a good one to have in our collective conscious. Randall
