On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:32:28PM -0500, 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.
By, "quantum," do you mean, "the smallest possible?"
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
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
