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. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
