Re: pgpool2 vs sequoia

On 8/6/07, mljv(at)planwerk6(dot)de <mljv(at)planwerk6(dot)de> wrote:
> the last few years we ran with horizontal partitioning. i always ran into
> problems with horizontal partioning because few tables must be shared across
> the databases and sometimes things are moving and i got lot of trouble with
> my primary keys being the same on different nodes.

Note that pgpool2 can be used to implement transparent horizontal
partitioning. Have you looked at it?

> At the moment i see the following solutions:
> 1 synchronous replication: pgpool2 (or sequoia)
> 2 horizontal partitioning
> 3 better hardware
> 4 asynchronous replication: slony

For #1 there's also PGCluster (which, incidentally, is not the same as
PGCluster-II, a shared-disk solution), which does synchronous
multimaster replication.

The project has historically looked a bit dead, but they just released
a new version and moved to a Trac-based web site at
http://www.pgcluster.org/.

One major downside to PGCluster is that it uses a modified version of
PostgreSQL, and it usually lags a few releases behind.

Alexander.