| From: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Replication |
| Date: | 2006-08-23 13:37:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20060823093736.bc063d42.darcy@druid.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:42:11 +0300
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> wrote:
> > OK, that solves your problem. How about my problem where replication
> > has to happen on servers in three countries on two continents and
> > thousands of updates a second have to happen in less that 10ms?
>
> For this scenario you are far better off with partitioning than
> replication.
>
> That is if your data is partitionable. But geographically distributed
> data often is.
I agree but in this case it wasn't.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | stark | 2006-08-23 13:50:06 | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-08-23 13:33:12 | Re: Question about (lazy) vacuum |