From: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Standard replication interface? |
Date: | 2002-08-15 17:50:59 |
Message-ID: | 1029433860.3030.28.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 09:53, Neil Conway wrote:
> That's exactly what I was going to say -- I'd prefer that any
> interested parties concentrate on producing a *really good*
> replication implementation, which might eventually be integrated into
> PostgreSQL itself.
>
> Producing a "generic API" for something that really doesn't need
> genericity sounds like a waste of time, IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
Some how I get the impression that I've been completely misunderstood.
Somehow, people seem to of only read the subject and skipped the body
explaining the concept.
In what way would providing a generic interface to *monitor* be a "waste
of time"? In what way would that prevent someone from "producing a
*readlly good* replication implementation"? I utterly fail to see the
connection.
Regards,
Greg Copeland
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-15 17:52:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Companies involved in development |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-15 17:44:35 | Re: failure notice (fwd) |