Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > Most hopefully this is very discouraging! Connection pools are a nice
> > > thing and I have used pgpool recently with great success, for pooling
> > > connections. But attempting to deliver multimaster replication as a
> > > byproduct of a connection pool isn't going to become an enterprise
> > > feature. And the more half-baked, half-functional and half-reliable
> > > replication attempts there are, the harder it will be to finally get a
> > > real solution being recognized.
> >
> > Well, considering we offer _nothing_ for multi-master right now, I think
> > it is a valuable project.
>
> Connection pooling is *not* multi master ... it doesn't even simulate
> multi-master ... multi-master, at least as far as I'm aware, means "no
> point of failure", and connection pooling creates a *single* point of
> failure ... the pgpool process dies, you've lost all connections to the
> database ...
I think people are confusing pgpool with pgcluster.
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073
