On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:59:55PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 05:26:56PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > I'm not well versed enough in this stuff to know. But being able to show
> > folks how they could setup HA that was guaranteed not to lose committed
> > data... that would be a huge boost for the community. I'm pretty sure
> 
> There's no system commercial available, AFAIK, that can offer that
> guarantee.  Here's what it would have to guarantee to make it
> possible, in the usual N (so this is N+1) notation

What I was replying to in
http://gborg.postgresql.org/pipermail/slony1-general/2006-January/003678.html
seems to indicate otherwise, but maybe I was reading it wrong...

What I do know is that every sales call I've been on someone at some
point has asked about PostgreSQL 'clustering' for HA, so there's
definately a lot of interest in HA out there (thought granted most of
these folks wouldn't spring for WAN HA...)
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby at pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461