I never considered MySQL because I really DO need transactions. MySQL also lacks many enterprise features we need; well they say they have them but from my testing they are a bit under-cooked.
I need atomic actions across an N number of application servers. The goal here is scalability, which is why I brought up clustering. Unfortunately, we really do need those transactions :( Thought has gone into solutions other than a relational database but they all ended up at the same place ... we started to design a database. Basically, we need the features of a relational database so other solutions started to look like one. thanks for the help, skye Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 06:55 -0800, brian stone wrote: > Are there any built in tools or 3rd party tools for distributing a > postgresql database? I need an active active configuration; master- > master with fail over. The project I am working needs to support a > very large number of transactions a second. It will eventually require > a main frame, or some absurd hardware. It makes much more sense to > consider a clustered configuration. DB requests come in from a row of > application servers. It would be nice if these requests could be > distributed. > Consider pgpool, and look at the partitioning feature (which uses different machines for different records, allowing writes to happen very quickly). Also, depending on what your needs are, a relational database might not be right for you. You say you need transactions, but if you're comparing to MySQL's master-master, I don't think that even supports ACID transactions. Do you actually need transactions, or just many writes per second (perhaps to memory rather than disk)? Regards, Jeff Davis --------------------------------- Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.
