On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 07:12:42AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >>then I was thinking. Couldn't he use
> >>multiple databases
> >>over multiple servers with dblink?
> >>
> >>It is not exactly how I would want to do it, but it would provide what
> >>he needs I think???
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes seems to be the only solution ... but I'm a little disapointed about
> >this ... could you explain me why there is not this kind of
> >functionnality ... it seems to be a real need for big applications no ?
> >
> >
> Because it is really, really hard to do correctly and hard
> equals expensive.
To expand on what Josh said, the expense in this case is development
resources. If you look on the developer site you'll see a huge TODO list
and a relatively small list of PostgreSQL developers. To develop a
cluster solution similar to RAC would probably take the efforts of the
entire development team for a year or more, during which time very
little else would be done.
I'm glad to see your persistance in wanting to use PostgreSQL, and there
might be some kind of limited clustering scheme that could be
implemented without a great amount of effort by the core developers. In
that case I think there's a good chance you could find people willing to
work on it.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
