"Ed L." <pgsql@bluepolka.net> writes:
> Is anyone aware of particular reasons why the group is pushing on a
> syncronous solution? I'm sure they have good reasons, but I would've
> assumed an asyncronous solution would be far more applicable for
You're just showing bias in the other direction ;-).
Back when I was working for Great Bridge and got to spend a fair amount
of time at trade shows talking to potential customers, the thing we
heard over and over again was that people wanted multiple servers for
reliability/redundancy. That goal seems to me to be best served by a
symmetric multi-master configuration, which is difficult if not
impossible to do with async replication.
There are certainly plenty of other scenarios where async works as well
or better, but that one seemed to be where the market was, at least in
terms of the presence of customers who might be willing to pay to have
it developed. So that's what the ex-Great-Bridgers among core have been
thinking about doing first. Also, there already is a credible async
replication alternative (PostgreSQL Inc's erserv), so filling the vacuum
for a sync solution seems higher-priority than doing another async
solution.
regards, tom lane
