Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
>
> > Speaking of which, I vaguely recall the OpenMOSIX guys talking about
> > possibly implementing clusterable shared memory (i.e. "shared" across
> > machines in a cluster) at some point in the future.
>
> To make PostgreSQL _really_ work in an environment like that, there
> would have to be some way of differentiate "local" shared memory versus
> "remote", because the speed of accessing remote shmem would be much
> lower than local shmem. What would be the gain versus have multi-master
> replication?
>
> ISTM horizontal partitioning of tables can give similar results without
> a so different architecture.
As I remember, to do locking, they transfer the shared memory to the
local machine, then do the locking --- seems kind of slow.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
