From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |
Date: | 2004-11-09 21:04:04 |
Message-ID: | 200411092204.04667.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Master + read-only slaves:
> - Slony-I when all sites are trusted
> - dbMirror for untrusted slaves and/or table based master slave
> assignment - Mammoth Replicator, proprietary ???
> - erServer ???
That begs the question in turn why there are so many master/slave
replication solutions. I mean, I don't care, but this categorization
doesn't really answer the original question.
> Multi-master:
> - C-JDBC, Will be transaction safe once PostgreSQL has XA
> - pgPool, not transaction safe ???
These are not multimaster solutions in the sense that you can write to
any one of multiple hosts. In a sense, they are really master/slave
solutions with the program components distributed differently. To
write, you always have to go through one host.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-11-09 21:26:14 | Re: Final Copy Edit: Press Release, Page |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-11-09 20:45:03 | Re: Final Copy Edit: Press Release, Page |