At 09:53 AM 4/27/2004 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Actually, what is needed is:
> > > >
> > > > - an exact mirror at all times;
> > > > - a very simple, straightforward, and fast way to failover;
> > > >
> > > > done by software.
>They can do hardware mirroring, or software/OS mirroring. Why put that
>in the database too? Seems like it would just complicate our code with
I agree. This is best done by the various RAID solutions out there.
One of the things Postgresql lacks would be the clustering stuff where you
either run one database on multiple machines or a cluster of multiple
databases on multiple machines that work together, in order to either get
better scalability/performance and/or availability. I don't really know
what would be good ways to do these - hope someone figures them out.
Still, there's always the expensive "Big box" option where you put
postgresql on one of those big fault-tolerant servers. Even so, the limit
on how big the "Big box" can get is probably a lot lower than how big a
cluster can get.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Eric Ridge||Date: 2004-04-27 15:17:27|
|Subject: Re: questions on rules|
|Previous:||From: Luiz Rafael Culik Guimaraes||Date: 2004-04-27 14:48:48|
|Subject: query optimizer dont treat correctly OR|