From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200611201505.kAKF59l20096@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
In-Reply-To: <200611201503.kAKF32U19682@momjian.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:05:09 -0500 (EST)
CC: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org,
	Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>, Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com>,
	Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Jim,
> > 
> > > That's true of simple query broadcasting (ie: pgpool), but not true ?
> > > of Continuent/Sequoia. Continuent's software adds a lot of additional ?
> > > features on top of simple query broadcasting, making it far more ?
> > > robust than simply spewing queries out to every node in the cluster. ?
> > > You still have to be very careful with how you use it, but not nearly ?
> > > as much as with simpler solutions.
> > 
> > I think the general term is "statement-based replication", not "broadcasting".
> 
> Well, the problem is that you can use a statement-based method to
> replication from a master to a slave.  I think MySQL used to use this
> method, or still does, so I don't think the term "statement-based" is
> clear enough, though I am open to other terms than "broadcast".

Oops, I see Markus Schiltknech likes the term "statement-based
replication" better too.  Certainly master-slave communication using
"statement-based replication" has the same drawbacks as the broadcast
method, but I wanted to highlight that the broadcast was happening
outside the server.  Do we need a master/slave "statement-based
replication" item and a middleware broadcast item?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +