This idea won't work with postgresql only one instance can operate on a datastore at a time.
Dave
Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
I was thinking the same! I'd like to know how other databases such as Oracle
do it.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Mitch Pirtle
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 4:42 PM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:42 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen
<darcy@wavefire.com> wrote:
Another Option to consider would be pgmemcache. that way you just build
the
farm out of lots of large memory, diskless boxes for keeping the whole
database in memory in the whole cluster. More information on it can be
found
at: http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/pgmemcache/
Which brings up another question: why not just cluster at the hardware
layer? Get an external fiberchannel array, and cluster a bunch of dual
Opterons, all sharing that storage. In that sense you would be getting
one big PostgreSQL 'image' running across all of the servers.
Or is that idea too 90's? ;-)
-- Mitch
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
