On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:55:42PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> David,
>
>>> I think the consensus in the core team was that having synchronous
>>> log shipping in 8.4 would already be a worthwhile feature by itself.
>>
>> If that was in fact the consensus of the core team,
>
> It is.
>
>> and what I've been seeing from several core members in this thread
>> makes that idea unclear, it's out of step with the stated goal of
>> the feature. Having some kind of half-way,
>> doesn't-actually-quite-work-out-of-the-box "replication" will make
>> things worse and not better.
>
> So, you've got a better implementation up your sleeve?
Nope.
> I really don't get where you're coming from on this. Frankly, your
> e-mails seem gauged to be merely disruptive without any intent of
> constructive input.
I'm sorry they've come across that way. That was not my intent.
> If you're opposed to working on replication in the core, then just
> say so. If you think that there's an easier way to develop M-S
> replication in the core than using WAL, then please present your
> solution.
I think having master-slave replication in the core using WAL is a
*great* thing to do, doable, a good path to go on, etc., and I think
it's worth holding up 8.4 until we have at least one actual
out-of-the-box version of same.
People have hinted that we might be able to get both a synchronous one
and an asynchronous one based on WAL, which would be even better. :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
