Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

David Fetter wrote:

> This part is a deal-killer.  It's a giant up-hill slog to sell warm
> standby to those in charge of making resources available because the
> warm standby machine consumes SA time, bandwidth, power, rack space,
> etc., but provides no tangible benefit, and this feature would have
> exactly the same problem.
> 
> IMHO, without the ability to do read-only queries on slaves, it's not
> worth doing this feature at all.

+1

I would think that a read-only WAL slave is more valuable than a 
real-time backup. (especially as the topic is about adding slaves not 
increasing the effectiveness of backups)


I also think that starting with a read-only WAL slave will ease the 
transition between delayed slave updating and real-time slave updating.


-- 

Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz

Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz