| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yannick Lecaillez <yl(at)itioweb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql on SAN |
| Date: | 2004-07-07 17:50:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1089222659.30980.480.camel@camel |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 06:39, Yannick Lecaillez wrote:
> I have this "clustering on SAN" problem today and
<snip>
Me thinks you've fallen into the trap of proprietary vendors. Your
problem isn't that you need "clustering on SAN", your problem is you
want some form of high availability solution for your database. You
*think* "clustering on San" is the best solution for this, but others
have come to differing opinions on this which is why we have things like
slony and pgpool (or clusgres for that matter). Not saying your wrong,
just saying that adding a feature shouldn't be your end goal, solving a
problem should be.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darko Prenosil | 2004-07-07 18:08:23 | tsearch and win32 (again) |
| Previous Message | Pierre Emmanuel Gros | 2004-07-07 16:26:24 | storage manager |