Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> Is it a common use case that people have more than 3 separate
> servers for one application, which is where the difference shows
> itself.
I don't know how common it is, but we replicate circuit court data
to two machines each at two sites. That way a disaster which took
out one building would leave us with the ability to run from the
other building and still take a machine out of the production mix
for scheduled maintenance or to survive a single-server failure at
the other site. Of course, there's no way we would make that
replication synchronous, and we're replicating from dozens of source
machines -- so I don't know if you can even count our configuration.
Still, the fact that we're replicating to two machines each at two
sites and that is the same example which came to mind for Robert,
suggests that perhaps it isn't *that* bizarre.
-Kevin