> That's something that I've dreamed about for some time. My rack of
> load-balanced web servers scales efficiently, easily, and cheaply. I
> need double the capacity? I buy more machines, and plug them in. If
> there were a way of replicating PG data from one master to many slaves in
> near-real-time, I could have a rack full of load-balanced database servers
> right next to it - cheap, easy, and effective.
>
> Even though I've kept my mouth shut, I've wondered why more effort isn't
> devoted to that.
I'll second this. Replication is my/our number one (actually, aside from
schemas, the only) needed new feature for PostgreSQL. If we could do updates
to a master server and push all those changes to a bunch of slaves, my job
would be incredibly easier. As it stands, we've had to restructure our data
model so that we can spread information across a number of different
machines.
> Don't get the impression that I'm bad-mouthing the developpers - I'm
> sure that they're taking care of priorities as best they can.
Here here. PostgreSQL seems to have come a long way, even in the relatively
short time I've been using it. I can't heap enough praise on those who give
their time to improving it. But as a user, it's important to let the
developers know what we want and/or need.
Greg