On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:40:09AM -0700, Chahine Hamila wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I guess many - if not most - here have tried
> pgcluster. For those who didn't, postgresql is pretty
I think you need to guess again. :)
> much the equivalent of pgcluster configured without
> load balancer or replicator, in read-write standalone
> mode. From a user point of view, that's three maximum
> additional configuration files, which can be basically
> set to those default values and distributed as is in
> standard (making installs/upgrades transparent to
> non-cluster environments). From a developer point of
> view, the pgcluster code is quite easy to take a hold
> on.
>
> pgcluster still has quite a few pending issues, but
> it's good enough for many users. Integrating it as
> part of a standard postgresql distribution would
> likely not disrupt standard postgresql functionning,
> while giving it the replication features it lacks as
> is. It's also likely to accelerate its maturing by a
> more widespread adoption and as a result overcome most
> of its issues.
>
> If the idea of its integration in the main postgresql
> code is of any interest to the postgresql team, I'm
> willing to invest some effort on it.
First, you need to review all the past discussion about the very
intentional decision not to build any replication into the core
database.
Second, pgcluster is (AFAIK) command-based replication, which has some
very, very serious drawbacks. If PostgreSQL were to include a
replication solution, I'd certainly hope it wouldn't be command-based.
Finally, pgcluster is very out-of-date. The last version uses 8.0.1 and
was released on Mar. 7, 2005. If the author can't find the time to
maintain it, I don't see why that burden should be put on the shoulders
of this community.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
