On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00978.php
I still don't see where I suggested removing anything. What Heikki
suggested, and I agreed with, was adding something: integrated base
backup.
> I don't think anyone who argued in favour of removal of existing system
> was aware that we'd lose anything as a result. I think everybody
> supports the easier-if-possible sentiment that Heikki was expressing; I
> just don't want to let that be seen as agreement to remove, by default,
> at a later time.
I'm still totally unclear as to what you think anyone might, at some
point in the future, propose to remove.
I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
from Heikki:
# IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't in such good shape, I'm
afraid. I've said
# this before, but I'm not happy with the "built from spare parts"
nature of it. You
# shouldn't have to configure an archive, file-based log shipping using rsync or
# whatever, and pg_standby. All that is in addition to the direct
connection between
# master and slave. The slave really should be able to just connect to
the master, and
# download all the WAL it needs directly. That's a huge usability
issue if left as is,
# but requires very large architectural changes to fix.
...Robert
