On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 19:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 19:23 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
>
> > Jeff Davis wrote:
> > > If there is some great replication solution that a lot of people need
> > > and it will only work with a change to core, that change might make it
> > > in.
> >
> > That's what I'm saying. Although it's hypothetical.
>
> My interest is in extending Warm Standby [8.2] to include the following
> forms of replication:
> 1. asynchronous WAL-record level transfer to Standby server
> 2. synchronous WAL-record level transfer to Standby server
> My foresight includes that this would likely require some improvements
> in Group Commit, but I've not done the design for this *yet*.
>
> I would also like to include some performance optimisations into Core
> that are specifically aimed at improving Slony performance. (I'm more
> than happy if those things also increase performance of other
> situations). That's slightly different thing to embedding Slony in Core,
> which I am *not* suggesting. Suggestions welcome.
>
> This will then give PostgreSQL:
> - improved performance for the most popular production replication
> system for PostgreSQL (Slony)
> - a capability for Synchronous Replication, when it is requested
>
> That's the limit of my ambitions for 8.3.
Very curious slony user here. Can I ask what you have planned for 8.3
in regards to Slony performance?
--
Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.