| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <bob(at)bob(dot)usuhs(dot)mil>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cluster replication with intermezzo |
| Date: | 2002-10-01 18:04:12 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0210011359390.19389-100000@polluelo.lab.protecne.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 1 Oct 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
> Speaking of which, I vaguely recall the OpenMOSIX guys talking about
> possibly implementing clusterable shared memory (i.e. "shared" across
> machines in a cluster) at some point in the future.
To make PostgreSQL _really_ work in an environment like that, there
would have to be some way of differentiate "local" shared memory versus
"remote", because the speed of accessing remote shmem would be much
lower than local shmem. What would be the gain versus have multi-master
replication?
ISTM horizontal partitioning of tables can give similar results without
a so different architecture.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-10-01 18:08:21 | Re: count() for a select statement? |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-10-01 17:55:19 | Re: cluster replication with intermezzo |