Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > OK. I am still feeling that data partitioning is like master/slave
> > replication because you have to get that read-only copy to the other
> > server. If you split things up so data sets resided on only one
> > machine, you are right that would not be replication, but do people do
> > that? If so, it is almost another solution.
>
> People do that in cases where there is high write loads ("high" as in
> "not 10+ times less than reads") and just replicating the RO copies
> would be prohibitively expensive in either network, cpu or memory terms.
OK, as Markus suggested, I have moved Data Partitioning down to the
bottom, and mentioned it as only optionally keeping a read-only copy on
each server. Is this better?
> > > Several single-master systems? C'mon! Pgpool simply implements the most
> > > simplistic form of multi-master replication.
>
> In what way is pgpool multimaster ? last time I looked it did nothing
> but applying DML to several databses. i.e. it is not replication at all,
> or at least it is masterless, unless we think of the pgpool process
> itself as the _single_ master :)
I have remove the mention of "multi-master" from query broadcast.
>
> > Just because you can access
> > > the single databases inside the cluster doesn't make it less
> > > Multi-Master, does it?
> >
> > OK, changed to "Multi-Master Replication Using Query Broadcasting".
>
> I think this gives completely wrong picture of what pgpool does.
>
> How about just "Query Broadcasting" ?
>
Done.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
