From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication on the backend |
Date: | 2005-12-07 20:37:08 |
Message-ID: | 20051207203708.GE1315@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 12:35:43AM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> We do not plan to implement replication inside the backend. Replication
> needs are so diverse that pluggable replication support makes a lot more
> sense. To me it even makes more sense than keeping transaction support
> outside of the database itself and add it via pluggable storage add-on.
And, as I say every single time this comes up, Oracle's and IBM's and
MS's and everybody else's replication systems are _also_ add ons. If
you don't believe me, look at the license costs. You can get a
system without it enabled, which means (by definition) it's a modular
extension.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
--Brad Holland
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darcy Buskermolen | 2005-12-07 20:57:34 | Re: Foreign key trigger timing bug? |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-12-07 20:33:13 | Re: Concurrent CREATE INDEX, try 2 (was Re: Reducing |