Re: Standard replication interface?

On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 13:18, Neil Conway wrote:
> That said, I _personally_ don't see the need for more than one or two
> replication implementations. You might need more than one if you
> wanted to do both lazy and eager replication, for example. But you
> certainly don't need 5 or 6 or however many implementations exist at
> the moment.

Fair enough.  Thank you for offering a complete explanation.

You're argument certainly made sense.  I wasn't aware of any single
serious effort underway which sought to finally put replication to bed,
let alone integrated into the core code base.

Sign,
Greg Copeland