At 09:53 AM 4/27/2004 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Actually, what is needed is: > > > > > > - an exact mirror at all times; > > > - a very simple, straightforward, and fast way to failover; > > > > > > done by software.
They can do hardware mirroring, or software/OS mirroring. Why put that in the database too? Seems like it would just complicate our code with little payback.
I agree. This is best done by the various RAID solutions out there.
One of the things Postgresql lacks would be the clustering stuff where you either run one database on multiple machines or a cluster of multiple databases on multiple machines that work together, in order to either get better scalability/performance and/or availability. I don't really know what would be good ways to do these - hope someone figures them out.
Still, there's always the expensive "Big box" option where you put postgresql on one of those big fault-tolerant servers. Even so, the limit on how big the "Big box" can get is probably a lot lower than how big a cluster can get.
Link.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
