Re: Integrating Replication into Core

Have you looked at the new HA/load balancing section of the docs?
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/high-availability.html

I got a lot of feedback on that.  Perhaps it can be a starting point for
you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 11:05:34AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Actually I don't buy this argument. The only major change in 
> 
> Ok, good.  So why isn't Postgres-R something we have _now_?  The work
> that I've seen on it, so far (and I speak as someone who invested a
> significant amount of staff time, cash money, and -- frankly --
> "political" credibility in software based on that idea) is that there
> isn't a way to make it production-grade without pretty severe
> constraints on what it can do.
> 
> It was that unhappy discovery that led me to say, "Can we please
> _write down_ what we think 'replication' might require, and what the
> trade-offs can be?"  I'm trying to write requirements in public here;
> but all I get is silence.  This frustrates me partly because, as
> someone who stuck his neck out to make sure Slony was released as
> free software, I hear a lot of demands for features people apparently
> want without much in the way of design proposals -- never mind code -- 
> to achieve those features.  When Jan delivered the initial release of
> Slony, it was preceded by a design doc.  I note on -hackers long
> emails from (for example) Tom doing something very similar when
> proposing a major feature.  What I'm trying to do is to get the
> replication-interested community of PostgreSQL users to say "here's
> what we mean by 'replication'" before we all go off inventing the
> grammar.  We need to have a clue about the domain of discourse before
> we start settling the variable assignments.
> 
> It seems to me that every single replication discussion on -hackers
> amounts to a bunch of futile attempts by colour blind people (of
> which I am one) to describe the colour 'high note', while their
> interlocutors describe the sound 'red'.  I'm trying to get us to say
> what it would mean even to do the describing.
> 
> Specifying requirements for what software is supposed to do is one of
> those thankless tasks that everyone complains is never done in the
> free software community.  I am offering, earnestly, to do that.  I
> just need a few people to tell me what _they think_ the software in
> question ought to do.  I set up a mailing list.  I have solicited
> comments.  I'm not sure what else to do, but so far, I have the
> positive remarks of Jose (GORDA), the remarks of Markus (which amount
> to "this is a waste of time", unless I misread him), and nothing
> else.
> 
> Surely, in a community that spends time on the topic of whether
> replication "should be in the back end", we oughta be able to come up
> with 10 or so people who are willing to say what "being in the back
> end" would mean.  At the moment, this trivial goal is all I'm aiming
> for.
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
> When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.  What do you do sir?
>         --attr. John Maynard Keynes
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

--  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +