Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> No, I don't think so. �HS without SR means you still have to fool with
> >> setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the existence of
> >> pg_standby is a PITA. �And you have to make a tradeoff of how often to
> >> flush WAL files to the standby. �To be a real candidate for "it just
> >> works" replication, we've *got* to have SR.
>
> > Yes, but HS without SR certainly solves all the "need to offload my
> > reporting" kind of situations, which is still a very big thing. Yes,
> > it'll be much nicer with SR, but it will be *very* useful without it
> > as well.
>
> [ shrug... ] To me, HS+SR is actual replication, which would justify
> tagging this release 9.0. With only one of them, it's 8.5. I
> understand that there are power users who would find HS alone to be
> tremendously useful, but in terms of what the average user sees, there's
> a quantum difference.
No question. We have to think of the average user when considering the
impact of these features, meaning not what _we_ are capable of doing,
but what the average user is capable of easily setting up.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
