On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 08:40:13PM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote: > On 6/1/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >These are all different solutions to different problems, so it's not > >surprising that they look different. This was the reason I asked, > >"What is the problem you are trying to solve?" > > You mean aside from the obvious one, scalability? Why is that the "obvious one"? If that's your problem, say so. I have different problems. I don't need 30 back end machines to keep my website running. Something obvious in one context is a misfeature of pointless complication in another. > appear a solution that could enable a database to scale horizontally > with minimal impact on the application. In light of this need, I think > we could be more productive by rephrasing the question "how/when we > can implement multimaster replication?" as "how/when can we implement > horizontal scaling?". Indeed, this may well be a different problem. In fact, if what you want is "to scale horizontally with minimal impact on the application", I encourage you to go out and buy the first database replication system that will actually do that for you. Not the one that _tells_ you they can, the one that actually does. I agree that horizontal scaling is a desirable feature, but I don't think it obvious that multimaster replication, whatever that means, is the thing that will solve that problem. > I would love to see a discussion about how PostgreSQL could address > these issues. Well, a good start would be to list what exactly you do and do not mean by horizontal scaling: what is the behaviour under various scenarios. That's a good way to list at least what the problem is. (Your mail was a good start, but only a start. Is RI required across nodes? Why not? Why? What is allowed to break? &c.) A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace. --Philip Greenspun
