On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> My point being, no matter how terrible an idea a certain storage media >> is, there's always a use case for it. Even if it's very narrow. > > The trouble is, if extra subscribers induce load on the "master," > which they presumably will, then that sliver of "use case" may very > well get obscured by the cost, such that the sliver should be treated > as not existing :-(.
One master, one slave, master handles all writes, slave handles all of the other subscribers. I've run a setup like this with as many as 8 or so slaves at the bottom of the pile with no problems at all. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
