I suggest you to read this: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/different-replication-sol utions.html
I would look at what Bucardo offers, which is asynchronous multi-master replication. In synchronous multi-master, and especially in your case with pgpool-II, if one database goes down, you might end with inconsistent data in each database (some data same, but newly added data on each end would cause a conflic in case you wanted to merge somehow the changes). -Daniel From: pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org [mailto:pgpool-general-boun...@pgfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Marco Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:04 AM To: pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org Subject: [Pgpool-general] Two geographic instances Hi all, I've been tasked with setting up a website running at two different geographic locations. Both locations should look the same to users, so the problem is keeping the database (postgres) consistent. I'm expecting a minority of the accesses to be writes, and the rest reads. So I thought about doing something like this: have a postgres database at each site. On top of that, a pgpool instance at each site configured to use the local postgres and the remote pgpool as backends. Writes would go to the local postgres, and to the remote pgpool (synchronously; I can probably afford the cost as writes will be few). Would this work technically? Would this provide consistency between the two databases? I've never used pgpool before, so I may be uttering nonsense (let me know if that's the case). Thanks for any help.
_______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
