Chahine Hamila <chahine.hamila@yahoo.com> writes:
> I posted a patch on the pgcluster mailing list
> but I already have two significant fixes related to
> pgcluster and one minor change related to the upgrade
> itself. I am to use PGCluster in a real time embedded
> fault-tolerant system, so I'm likely to emit a few
> more patches in the way to make it more robust and
> performant on some aspects.
That all sounds great.
> That said, my company
> would feel more confortable with the idea that it's
> part of the postgresql mainstream distro for many
> obvious reasons - or we might drop postgresql
> altogether - which is why I'm proposing myself to do
> the necessary work to integrate it in postgresql if
> there's interest.
The core development team has only a very finite number of cycles
available. Would you rather we spend our time on fixing pgcluster
than on fixing the core Postgres database?
My take on all this is that there's no one-size-fits-all replication
solution, and therefore the right approach is to have multiple active
subprojects. pgcluster sounds like it's steaming along nicely where
it is.
regards, tom lane
