On Tuesday February 25 2003 11:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Also, there are nontrivial licensing issues involved. The PG-R
> design depends on an underlying "group communication" system, which
> is a nontrivial bit of software that none of the core team wants to
> rewrite. But none of the available GC systems are BSD-license open
> source. We had had some hopes of getting Spread to offer BSD
> terms, but that seems to have fallen through. So right now, PG-R
> is on the outside looking in, as far as inclusion in the core
> distribution goes :-(
Is anyone aware of particular reasons why the group is pushing on a
syncronous solution? I'm sure they have good reasons, but I would've
assumed an asyncronous solution would be far more applicable for
simple redundancy as opposed to syncronicity for high-performance
clusters, not too mention being far simpler implementations.
Ed