On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> >> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
>> > I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
>> > users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that
>> > would be affected, or how to count them.
>> Perhaps so, but I would hope you would support what Heikki and others
>> have been talking about as an option for replication. The 2% shouldn't
>> hold back the remaining 98%.
> So far, everything has been couched in terms of remove the way it is now
> and put in its place something "better". Heikki and Josh have said that
> or similar, as has Robert Haas on another thread, and Fujii-san
> specifically said "get rid of" the existing functionality. I am
> completely against the removal of an existing capability that is
> critically important to many users.
I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
all about.
It seems to me that in previous discussions of Streaming Replication,
Heikki put forward the proposition that the standby server should be
able to connect to the primary and stream not only newly-generated WAL
but also, if necessary, a base backup. As I recall, he argued that
without this functionality Streaming Replication would be far too
difficult to administer for the majority of users. Assuming I'm
representing his position more or less accurately, I completely agree
with it. I don't object to providing other mechanisms as well, but if
it's not about as simple as pointing the secondary at the primary and
saying "go", it's probably more complicated than I want to mess around
with.
...Robert
