On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>>> The phrase "read-only replication" reads oddly to me. Isn't the
>>>> normal term "single master"?
>>>
>>> I've been using the phrase "binary replication" which is what's really new.
>
>> As opposed to what? ASCII replication?
>
> It's not the replication that's read-only, it's the queries executed on
> the slaves. I haven't read the proposed docs but it sounds like this
> is confusing two features that would be better explained separately,
> viz
>
> * built-in simple replication
>
> * ability to execute read-only queries on a replication slave server
>
> (in this context, "simple" really means "all or nothing", as compared
> to stuff like Slony that can replicate subsets of a database)
I like that. Even though it means a bit more explanation, I think it
is very clear. Update:
http://etherpad.opensourcebridge.org/postgresql-beta-release-balloon
-selena
--
http://chesnok.com/daily - me
http://endpoint.com - work
