David Fetter wrote:
> This part is a deal-killer. It's a giant up-hill slog to sell warm
> standby to those in charge of making resources available because the
> warm standby machine consumes SA time, bandwidth, power, rack space,
> etc., but provides no tangible benefit, and this feature would have
> exactly the same problem.
>
> IMHO, without the ability to do read-only queries on slaves, it's not
> worth doing this feature at all.
>
That's not something that squares with my experience *at all*, which
admitedly is entirely in
investment banks. Business continuity is king, and in some places the
warm standby rep
from the database vendor is trusted more than block-level rep from the
SAN vendor
(though that may be changing to some extent in favour of the SAN).
James
