Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 17:42 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
>
>
>> I would have thought the read only piece would have been more important than
>> the synchronous piece. In my experience readable slaves is the big selling
>> point in both Oracle and MySQL's implementations, and people are not nearly
>> as concerned if there is a small asynchronous window.
>>
>
> The read only piece is the more important piece from a market
> perspective.
>
>
>
You must be gauging a different market from the one I'm in. I have just
come back from a meeting with a (quite technically savvy) customer who
was quite excited by the news and saw the possibility of read-only
slaves as a nice to have extra rather than a must-have-or-it's-not-worth
anything feature.
I'm really quite astounded and rather saddened by the waves of
negativity I have seen today.
cheers
andrew
