Hi,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't in such good shape, I'm afraid. I've
>> said this before, but I'm not happy with the "built from spare parts" nature
>> of it. You shouldn't have to configure an archive, file-based log shipping
>> using rsync or whatever, and pg_standby. All that is in addition to the
>> direct connection between master and slave. The slave really should be able
>> to just connect to the master, and download all the WAL it needs directly.
>> That's a huge usability issue if left as is, but requires very large
>> architectural changes to fix.
>
> Yeah, I wasn't thinking about this, but you had mentioned it before,
> and I thought (and think) it's a pretty fair criticism. I think the
> base backup should be integrated into the mechanism as well. I want
> to just be able to configure the master and slave for replication,
> fire up the slave, and walk away. Without that, I agree that it's
> likely to be too cumbersome for any actual use.
I don't think this is essential for replication. It's an optimization, and
synch-rep still works fine without it. And, I'm not sure that this should
be the job of postgres, from the beginning. Do you think we should
develop "rsync" again for postgres?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center