On Tuesday 27 January 2009 11:56:51 Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 11:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 03:12:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> I don't think this is correct.
> > >
> > > I do.
> > >
> > > People literally grab my shoulder and ask when we'll have it.
> >
> > Do these people understand the difference between HS and a complete
> > replication solution? Are they still as excited after you explain
> > the difference?
>
> Yes, I think they do.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/community/survey.55
> These people seem to understand also.
>
> Sync rep *is* important, but it opens up new classes of applications for
> us. As does SEP. Both of those are more speculative and harder to
> measure, but we've seen big impact before from this type of new feature.
>
> HS appeals to current users. Current users aren't so worried about new
> applications, they look forward to being able to run queries on their
> currently idle standby servers.
>
That's modest. I've talked to several oracle and db2 shops that want a standby
for reporting that has relatively easy setup/maintenance (handling ddl is a
big part of this) and the HS feature your working on will give them something
as good as what they are getting now. So yeah, HS appeals to future users as
well.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com