Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1235506082.16176.211.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches
Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. If we can add new functionality that is a nice-to-have for a large number of people without removing a feature that is critical to many users, bring it on. If we can't do that, then I would oppose. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: