Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
>
And you wonder where that's coming from, eh? Tatsuo is advertising
pgpool as a synchronous replication system suitable for failover.
Quoting from the pgpool-1.0 README:
pgpool could be used as a replication server. This allows real-time backuping of the database to avoid disk
failures.pgpool sends exactly same query to each PostgreSQL servers to accomplish replication. So pgpool can be
regardedas a "synchronous replication server".
Don't get me wrong, as said pgpool works great for the purpose I tested,
the pooling. But statements like that are causing the confusion here.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
