| From: | Richard Welty <rwelty(at)averillpark(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | high availability (was Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL) |
| Date: | 2003-04-15 22:43:48 |
| Message-ID: | E195Z9Y-0001af-BM@skipper.averillpark.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:21:36 -0700 Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)cvc(dot)net> wrote:
> How much different *IS* one distro from another?
the installation, boot time initializations, and packaging systems can be
pretty different, as can the degree of support you get after the fact.
i'm pondering a startup right now which will have some rather stringent
requirements for high availability, and one of the issues that's on my mind
is how to upgrade a high availability postgresql server farm. does anyone
have any thoughts/experience on this?
how are folks implementing high availability setups with postgresql? my db
guy is an old line informix type, and while he likes postgresql a lot, he's
very uncertain how to tackle the high availability issues with the pieces
currently on the table.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty(at)averillpark(dot)net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ronald Chmara | 2003-04-15 22:55:12 | Re: OT: mail server blocked |
| Previous Message | Dennis Gearon | 2003-04-15 22:41:24 | Re: OT: mail server blocked |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert E. Bruccoleri | 2003-04-15 22:54:53 | Re: Are we losing momentum? |
| Previous Message | Kurt Roeckx | 2003-04-15 22:36:20 | Transaction problem? |