On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:07:00PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> [ pgsql-patches removed from Cc: list ]
>
> Anuradha Ratnaweera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I
> > have already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner.
>
>
On 14 Oct 2002 at 11:55, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:10:26PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 11 Oct 2002 at 8:30, Greg Copeland wrote:
> >
> > > I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
> > > good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:10:26PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2002 at 8:30, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> > I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
> > good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
>
> Well, I guess in kind of replication we are talking here,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 08:30:55AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
> good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
It seems that almost all the postgres processes remain in the `home'
node.
Please notice that I am not underestimating
For give me for responding to the beginning of this thread, but my
comments only apply to this post.
> already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner. The goal
> is to achive `nearly complete fault tolerence' by replicating data.
A worthy goal indeed!
> - Postmasters are running on
[ pgsql-patches removed from Cc: list ]
Anuradha Ratnaweera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I have
> already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner.
Did you look at the research behind Postgres-R, and the pgreplication
stuff
Well, not scalable doesn't have to mean "not good". That's why I
asked. Considering this is one of the problems with mosix clusters
(process migration and associated restrictions) and the nature of
PostgreSQL's implementation I'm not sure what other result may of been
expected. Because of that,
On 11 Oct 2002 at 8:30, Greg Copeland wrote:
> I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
> good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
> On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 06:15, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:29:53PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > Have
I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes "not
good" for postgres on a mosix cluster.
Greg
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 06:15, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:29:53PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> >
> > Well, I don't think adding support for multiple
On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:16, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I have
> already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner. The goal
> is to achive `nearly complete fault tolerence' by replicating data.
Sounds a lot li
On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:29, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:54:15PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> I will look at it, too. Thanks for the link. In some cases, starting
> anew is faster than learning unmaintained existing code.
While that's true, usogres code is just fe
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:54:15PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
> On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:16, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I have
> > already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner. The goal
> > is to achive `nearly
On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:39, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:04:29PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:29, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:54:15PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > I will look at it, too. Thanks f
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:29:53PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
> Well, I don't think adding support for multiple slaves to usogres would be that
> problematic. Of course if you want to load balance your application queries,
> application has to be aware of that. I will not do sending req
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:04:29PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:29, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:54:15PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > I will look at it, too. Thanks for the link. In some cases, starting
> > anew is faster than l
15 matches
Mail list logo
