| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion |
| Date: | 2004-05-17 17:17:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20040517141614.K52585@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Most hopefully this is very discouraging! Connection pools are a nice
> > thing and I have used pgpool recently with great success, for pooling
> > connections. But attempting to deliver multimaster replication as a
> > byproduct of a connection pool isn't going to become an enterprise
> > feature. And the more half-baked, half-functional and half-reliable
> > replication attempts there are, the harder it will be to finally get a
> > real solution being recognized.
>
> Well, considering we offer _nothing_ for multi-master right now, I think
> it is a valuable project.
Connection pooling is *not* multi master ... it doesn't even simulate
multi-master ... multi-master, at least as far as I'm aware, means "no
point of failure", and connection pooling creates a *single* point of
failure ... the pgpool process dies, you've lost all connections to the
database ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-05-17 17:23:49 | Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion |
| Previous Message | Manfred Spraul | 2004-05-17 16:57:13 | Re: Table Spaces |