> It would only be possible to have the actual PostgreSQL backends<br /> > running on a single node anyway,
becausethey use shared memory to<br /><br />This is not problem: Performance is a secondary consideration (at least<br
/>asfar as the problem I was referring to).<br /><br />The primary usefulness is to have the data be a logical entity
rather<br/> than a physical entity so that one can maintain physical machines<br />without having to worry to much
aboutwhere-is-the-data.<br /><br />At the moment, most databases suffer from the problem of occasionally<br />having to
movethe data from one place to another. This is a major<br /> nightmare that happens once every few years for most
DBAs.<br/>It happens because a system needs a soft/hard upgrade, or a disk<br />enlarged, or because a piece of
hardwarefails.<br /><br />I have also found it's no use having RAID or ZFS. Each of these ties<br /> the data to an OS
installation.If the OS needs to be reinstalled, all<br />the data has to be manually moved in a way that is, well...
dangerous.<br/><br />If there is only one machine running postgres that is fine too: I can have<br /> a second
identicalmachine on standby in case of a hardware failure.<br />That means a short amount of downtime - most people can
live<br/>with that.<br /><br />I read somewhere that replication was one of the goals of postgres's<br /> coming
developmentefforts. Personally I think hadoop might be<br />a better solution - *shrug*.<br /><br />Thoughts/comments
??<br/><br />-paul<br /><br /><br /><br />