From: | "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Chris Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: multimaster |
Date: | 2007-06-02 00:35:55 |
Message-ID: | 88daf38c0706011735l1e603091y38abaafc4dfc900d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 6/1/07, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:
> There would be *some* scalability gains to be had, but the primary
> reason for looking for multimaster replication is that you need high
> availability so badly that you are willing to give up performance to
> get it.
...dependent on some specific definition of "multimaster". I note that
the MySQL people happily use "multimaster replication" to mean a
master/slave setup where masters are also slaves, and conflicts are
supposedly handled by assuming that the user always assigns unique IDs
to new rows. That's not necessarily my definition.
> > As it stands today, horizontally partitioning a database into multiple
> > separate "shards" is incredibly invasive on the application
> > architecture, and typically relies on brittle and non-obvious hacks
> > such as configuring sequence generators with staggered starting
> > numbers, omitting referential integrity constraints, sacrificing
> > transactional semantics, and moving query aggregation into the app
> > level. On top of this, dumb caches such as Memcached are typically
> > layered to avoid hitting the database in the first place.
>
> Question: In what way would you expect an attempt to do
> mostly-trying-to-be-transparent multimaster replication to help with
> these issues you're bringing up?
I don't expect anything. What I said was: "I think we could be more
productive by rephrasing the question 'how/when we can implement
multimaster replication?' as 'how/when can we implement horizontal
scaling?'". Which means we're in agreement when you say:
> Partitioning isn't multimaster replication; it's something worthy of
> having a discussion independent of anything about MMR.
Alexander.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erwin Brandstetter | 2007-06-02 00:43:38 | Re: There can be only one! How to avoid the "highlander-problem". |
Previous Message | Erwin Brandstetter | 2007-06-02 00:33:31 | There can be only one! How to avoid the "highlander-problem". |