From: | "Daniel Duvall" <the(dot)liberal(dot)media(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postgresql clustering |
Date: | 2005-09-29 00:37:51 |
Message-ID: | 1127954271.959500.241420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
While "clustering" in some circles may be an open-ended buzzword --
mainly the commercial DB marketing crowd -- there are concepts beneath
the bull that are even inherent in the name. However, I understand
your point.
>From what I've researched, the concepts and practices seem to fall
under one of two abstract categorizations: fail-over (ok...
high-availability), and parallel execution (high-performance... sure).
While some consider the implementation of only one of these to qualify
a cluster, others seem to demand that a "true" cluster must
implement both.
What I'm really after is a DB setup that does fail-over and parallel
execution. Your setup sounds like it would gracefully handle the
former, but cannot achieve the latter. Perhaps I'm simply asking too
much of a free software setup.
Thanks for your response.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-09-29 01:45:05 | Re: Open items list for 8.1 |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-09-29 00:37:50 | Re: postgresql clustering |