On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I'm not very clear what your response has to do with Stefan's comments.
>
> My general perspective is that MySQL released a simple design a year
> ahead of us, which should be to our collective shame. I will be working
> towards delivering something useful in this release.
I don't feel ashamed of our feature set and I am not out to beat MySQL
or anyone else, just to deliver the best product that we can. Our
community has different interests than the MySQL community and that is
fine. Still, I don't disagree that we should be aiming at feature
parity.
<reads MySQL documentation>
I see now that you've tried to design this feature in a way that is
similar to MySQL's offering, which does have some value. But it
appears to me that the documentation you've written here is
substantially similar to the MySQL 5.5 reference documentation. That
could get us into a world of legal trouble - that documentation is not
even open source, let alone BSD.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/replication-semisync.html
> I would rather concentrate on a minimal set of functionality that we can
> all agree on.
Me too; and perhaps your proposal is it. But I think it's a shame we
didn't put more work into standby registration when we had time to get
that done. It might not be necessary, but it would have delivered
some nice functionality that we are now not going to have for 9.1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company