| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: On "multi-master" |
| Date: | 2005-10-14 17:08:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20051014170800.GB20107@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:33:22AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> BTW, the reason why I myself stick with pgpool is there's no
> perfect or acceptable replication solution for PostgreSQL (please do
> not talk about RAC or MySQL Cluster. I hate them:-).
And that's part of why we're looking at it, too. Slony-I has a
target, but it's not this one.
> and has truly high-avilabilty). Maybe Slony-II is one of the hope, but
> I have no idea how the performance is...
Well, since it doesn't exist except in prototype yet, I think the
performance is pretty bad :-)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-14 17:08:56 | Re: PostgreSQL Gotchas |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2005-10-14 17:06:27 | Re: On "multi-master" |