On Wednesday February 26 2003 8:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I would've assumed an asyncronous solution would be far more
> > applicable for
>
> You're just showing bias in the other direction ;-).
Mea culpa.
> Back when I was working for Great Bridge and got to spend a fair
> amount of time at trade shows talking to potential customers, the
> thing we heard over and over again was that people wanted multiple
> servers for reliability/redundancy. That goal seems to me to be
> best served by a symmetric multi-master configuration, which is
> difficult if not impossible to do with async replication.
I also share the objectives of reliability/redundancy. My concern
with syncronous solutions in general is recoverability when one of
two masters fails. Admittedly at the price of intervals of data
inconsistency between master and slave, async solutions can just pop
back online and "catch-up", thus the appeal. In reading a little
more on PG-R, I understand the use of the Spread GCS would seem to
address that recoverability concern along with performance concerns.
Is that your understanding?
As an aside, ERserver looks credible, though the $10,000 pricetag and
closed source are somewhat of a barrier, so I hope an increasingly
useful open-source async solution can further emerge.
Ed