On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 04:44:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 09:54:03PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I think the consensus in the core team was that having
> >> synchronous log shipping in 8.4 would already be a worthwhile
> >> feature by itself.
I'm sorry if I was unclear on this. I don't disagree that it would be
a worthy feature. I do disagree with the idea, given this goal, that
we can expect to ship 8.4 without a built-in replication and have that
be good enough by itself.
> > If that was in fact the consensus of the core team, and what I've
> > been seeing from several core members in this thread makes that
> > idea unclear, it's out of step with the stated goal of the
> > feature. Having some kind of half-way,
> > doesn't-actually-quite-work-out-of-the-box "replication" will make
> > things worse and not better.
>
> What is your justification for denigrating this plan with that? Or
> are you merely complaining because we know we won't be all the way
> there in 8.4?
Again, just my humble opinion, but given the stated goal, which I
agree with, I'd say it's worth holding up 8.4 until some kind of
out-of-the-box replication advances that goal, where Yet Another
Toolkit Suitable For People Who Are Already Database Kernel Hackers To
Build Replication Systems On Top Of does not.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate