On Thursday 29 May 2008 22:59:21 Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> >> I fully accept that it may be the case that it doesn't make technical
> >> sense to tackle them in any order besides sync->read-only slaves because
> >> of dependencies in the implementation between the two. If that's the
> >> case, it would be nice to explicitly spell out what that was to deflect
> >> criticism of the planned prioritization.
> >
> > There's a very simple reason to prioritize the synchronous log shipping
> > first; NTT may open source their solution and we'll get it a lot sooner
> > than the other components.
>
> That's a good argument. I just read the NTT document and the stuff
> looks fantastic. You've convinced me...
It would be a better argument if the NTT guys hadn't said that they estimated
6 months time before the code would be released, which puts us beyond 8.4.
Now it is possible that the time frame could be sooner, but unless someone
already has the patch, this reminds me a little too much of the arguments for
including windows support in a single release because we already had a work
port/patch set to go from.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
