Greg Smith wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:43:48 +0000, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> >> I want my ability to run large batch queries without any performance
> >> or reliability impact on the primary server.
> > +1
> > I can use any number of other technologies for high availability.
> Remove "must be an instant-on failover at the same time" from the
> requirements and you don't even need 9.0 to handle that, this has been a
> straightforward to solve problem since 8.2. It's the combination of HA
> and queries that make things hard to do.
> If you just want batch queries on another system without being concerned
> about HA at the same time, the first option is to just fork the base
> backup and WAL segment delivery to another server and run queries there.
That is a lot of administrative overhead. It is hard to say it is
equivalent to HS.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-27 14:40:17|
|Subject: Re: visibility maps and heap_prune|
|Previous:||From: Dickson S. Guedes||Date: 2010-02-27 14:02:15|
|Subject: Re: caracara failing to bind to localhost?|