I am not so sure of this arrangement's mertis
From HA (High Availability) point of view, the host/server is a single point
of failure which will bring your entire infrastructure down if any of the
server hardware components fail.
From Performance point of view, you have increased the load on your server
by 3 folds as all instances would be using your I/O bandwidth to write to
Given $300 to $400 price of headless servers these days, its much economical
to split the workload on three boxes
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 10:19 -0500, Scott Whitney wrote:
> > I've got 3 different database servers (db01, db02 and db03).
> > I would like to have a WAL standby server that replays logs for all 3 in
> > case one goes down, so I can promote that particular server.
> > Can I do this by installing 3 separate postmasters on this machine?
> > Obviously, if 2 went down at the same time, I'd have to do some magic to
> > bring up another machine, but I'm not sure that's a concern.
> Yes, that will work.
> Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Scott Whitney||Date: 2008-06-26 18:01:03|
|Subject: Re: Warm standby server|
|Previous:||From: Carol Walter||Date: 2008-06-26 17:34:29|
|Subject: Re: Extended security/restriction to any role with login access|