| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming replication and postmaster signaling |
| Date: | 2010-01-07 20:22:03 |
| Message-ID: | 16438.1262895723@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
>> However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot
>> less compelling than HS with SR. So it's going to be pretty
>> unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there.
> I don't think that's the case. Having HS alone would be a huge win,
> and the sooner we can get it out there the better. Those that are
> waiting for SR might have to wait one more version, but my intuition
> tells me that's a small minority compared to those waiting for HS.
No, I don't think so. HS without SR means you still have to fool with
setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the existence of
pg_standby is a PITA. And you have to make a tradeoff of how often to
flush WAL files to the standby. To be a real candidate for "it just
works" replication, we've *got* to have SR.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-07 20:25:25 | Re: Streaming replication and postmaster signaling |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-01-07 20:21:53 | Re: Streaming replication and postmaster signaling |