On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 09:30 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 18:21 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > On a side note to this.. you said *into*.. my understanding is the
> > > policy of the community is *no* replication is in core.
> >
> > I don't think that policy is written in stone. But for a replication
> > solution to go into core, it should better cover a lot of use cases,
> > i.e. for sure sync *and* async replication.
>
> Perhaps we should re-read the archives. It has been a pretty solid
> policy for *years* and it comes up before every release and it always
> comes back to:
>
> PostgreSQL doesn't ship a integrated replication solution, BECAUSE not
> any one replication solution can fit the need.
>
I always got the impression that it had more to do with whether it
needed to be in core to work or not.
If there is some great replication solution that a lot of people need
and it will only work with a change to core, that change might make it
in.
However, there may not be nifty syntax changes nor GUCs in core to
support a specific implementation of a replicator.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
