Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> That's modest. I've talked to several oracle and db2 shops that want a
>> standby for reporting that has relatively easy setup/maintenance
>> (handling ddl is a big part of this) and the HS feature your working
>> on will give them something as good as what they are getting now. So
>> yeah, HS appeals to future users as well.
>
> I've talked to some of my clients, and while they *want* synch or
> near-synch HS, even slow HS is useful to them *now*.
>
> One client is planning on deploying a rather complex FS cloning
> infrastructure just to have a bunch of reporting, testing and read-only
> search databases they need. They'd be thrilled with an HS feature which
> produced DBs which were an hour out of date (or even 6 hours out of
> date), but ran read-only queries.
I have a lot of clients who would be thrilled to have stuff that's been
in our tree for half a year by now, and they'd be thrilled to have it
*now*. How much extra should we have them wait for the needs of your
clients?
(Yes, I have clients now who would very much like HS as well, of course,
but that's not the point)
//Magnus
