From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
Date: | 2008-12-23 13:41:41 |
Message-ID: | 1230039701.4793.828.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 18:36 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Personally, I would like to have a
> simple setup where I can initially setup primary and standby and they
> continue to work in a single-failure mode without any additional
> administrative overhead (such as rsync). But that's just me and I
> don't know what the preferred option in the field.
If you want a tripod, you need to turn up with all 3 legs. :-)
PostgreSQL is a working product, not a framework or a function library.
We're not going to add code that has no function at all other than as
part of a larger feature, unless we add the whole feature.
I'm happy if that whole feature is added. If we do add it, it will be a
utility like "pg_resync". So in admin terms it will be almost identical
to using rsync, just a specific version that minimizes effort even more
than rsync does currently. The only difference as I see it would be some
gain in performance, but we don't need to send the whole database down
the wire again in either case.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-23 13:48:45 | Re: Lock conflict behavior? |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2008-12-23 13:07:46 | Re: Lock conflict behavior? |