Hi,
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Yes; what I meant was "production-grade, ready to go." I've played
> with your code. I'm mightily impressed that you managed to get it
> working. But I don't think it's ready for production use tomorrow in
> the environments where this sort of availability is actually worth
> the cost (think "money depends on this"). That's what I mean by
> "have".
Agreed.
> I agree with you that such supporting tools would be a very good
> thing. Maybe nothing else is needed. Like I said before, a negative
> result is still a result.
Okay.
> Well, part of the problem is there isn't much to say to code that I
> can't look at. I can play with it on the live CD, but so far the
> source isn't on the web page at postgres-r.org, which is the only
> source I know for it. This makes the whole matter trickier for
> potential adopters, because it's basically a black box.
Very understandable. I'm trying to find ways to open source Postgres-R.
> Yes, I think those docs are very good. But it's one thing to say,
> "This is what replication means," &c., and quite another to say,
> "Here are the sorts of things we plan to do, which have to work with
> that pile of code over there."
ACK.
>> I'm sorry if this sounded that negative.
>
> No, not negative. Remember, as I said, if it turns out that we can't
> actually come up with an outline of replication framework necessary
> conditions, we have also discovered something. That's a useful
> result, because it tells us that the next thing we need to do
> is figure out where the exclusive features are, so we can say "you
> can have A or B, but not both."
Okay.
>> through and written down. And for sure I'll let you know if and how you
>> or others can help me.
>
> Ok, thanks.
Thank you.
Markus
