Re: On "multi-master"

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:48:00AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> Why pgpool should bother? pgpool supposes every transaction should go
> through pgpool. Your example sounds like someone logs into M2 and tries
> to shut down it.

But because there's no enforcement of "every transaction should go
through pgpool", it's not enough for the managers who are ultimately
responsible for deciding on system design. In the hypothetical case,
we're aiming at multimaster systems that are there for reliability,
not performance. Decreasing the reliance on fault-tolerant hardware
by increasing the potential for human error does not solve that
problem.

> I don't know what you kind of problem you are talking about, but...
>
> If you find problems, please post it to pgpool-general and let's solve
> it. That's the open source way.

We have been (my colleague Brad is the one who's been working on
this). But for something to qualify for real production-grade use,
it needs to be rock solid stable in heavy use for a considerable
period of time. We're not there yet, is all I'm suggesting. (This
principle is why it's also a good thing that Red Hat Enterprise isn't
always completely up to date with the community sources.)

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
It is above all style through which power defers to reason.
--J. Robert Oppenheimer