On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:07:33 -0300 (ADT), Marc G. Fournier
<scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote:
> It would be unwise for *anyone* to state "never" as far as inclusion of
> built-in replication, but since the general consensus is that there is no
> such thing as the 'all-encompassing solution' for this, the chances of one
> ever coming about that would be of a scope that would be acceptable to be
> built-in is next to zero ...
I think what I run into is that while most of us would agree that the
"one size fits all" argument is useless from a technical perspective,
it's not the technical people that are usually the ones involved here.
From a "marketing" perspective, it would be useful if PostgreSQL
included at least a single master, single slave replication model that
was easily enabled and set up. There is a subclass of the problem that
is common to most situations, which is the ability to have a "live"
backup. Perhaps the 'dbmirror' component in the 'contrib' directory
is enough, and it simply needs to be highlighted. It does meet some
subset of the needs out there.
Sadly, a lot of problems are simply marketing perceptions :/
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli@gmail.com
