Received: from localhost (uranus.hub.org [200.46.204.60]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660309FA1E2 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 05:57:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.60]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08110-06 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 05:57:40 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from bugaboo.mu (ns1.bugaboo.mu [213.133.111.57]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946099FA19B for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 05:57:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.77.20] (p54BD8193.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [::ffff:84.189.129.147]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 markus@bluegap.ch) by bugaboo.mu with esmtp; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:57:38 +0100 id 021748BC.455AE492.00007592 Message-ID: <455AE492.8000206@bluegap.ch> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:57:38 +0100 From: Markus Schiltknecht User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061013) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Momjian CC: Jeff Frost , Chris Browne , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition References: <200611142243.kAEMhZf02180@momjian.us> In-Reply-To: <200611142243.kAEMhZf02180@momjian.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.856 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_50, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200611/24 X-Sequence-Number: 3858 Hi, > Jeff Frost wrote: >> I would speculate that your terminology is slightly more accurate than mine. I can't help it, but I'm still thinking the terminology in the replication documentation is somewhat made up. Bruce Momjian wrote: > Hmmm. Interesting. Does anyone else have details or an opinion on > this? The fact that there is something sitting above the servers seems > to be the defining issue of calling it query broadcast. I'd argue that "Query Broadcast Load Balancing" and "Clustering For Load Balancing" are both the same replication type: sync, multi-master. And the problem they try to solve is the same (Load Balancing). Listing them as two different types of replication... I don't know. But we should at least clearly state that both are sync, multi-master replication algorithms. Anyway, instead of mocking around any longer I'm trying to come up with a better proposal... patch will follow. Regards Markus