> If you have so much update load that one server cannot accomodate that
> load, then you should wonder why you'd expect that causing every one
> of these updates to be applied to (say) 3 servers would "diminish"
> this burden.
The update/query load isn't the real issue here, it's that these two
servers will be 800 miles apart and there are some advantages in having
each office connect to its local database rather than having one of
them connect to the remote master.
The Slony-1 approach will work, assuming I've got suffient network
bandwidth to support it plus the traffic from the remote office plus
exixting outside traffic from our public website.
That's one of those things you just don't know will work until you
have it built, so I'm looking for other options now while I have time
to consider them. Once I get on-site in two weeks it'll a lot more hectic.
--
Mike Nolan
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
