Re: 7.4?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Joe Tomcat <tomcat(at)mobile(dot)mp>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.4?
Date: 2003-02-26 06:52:30
Message-ID: 27648.1046242350@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 22:44, Ed L. wrote:
>> And do I understand correctly the replication to be eventually
>> included will be an embedded syncronous replication solution based on
>> Postgres-R and the Spread GCS?

> No, I don't think that's set in stone (although I can't speak for the
> core team). While I think Postgres-R is promising, there might be room
> for additional replication implementations that cater to different sets
> of requirements.

There absolutely *is* room for multiple replication implementations.
AFAICS there's no one-size-fits-all approach. I did and still do like
Postgres-R as a pretty useful approach, but it should not be mistaken
for The One True Path.

Also, there are nontrivial licensing issues involved. The PG-R design
depends on an underlying "group communication" system, which is a
nontrivial bit of software that none of the core team wants to rewrite.
But none of the available GC systems are BSD-license open source. We
had had some hopes of getting Spread to offer BSD terms, but that seems
to have fallen through. So right now, PG-R is on the outside looking
in, as far as inclusion in the core distribution goes :-(

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: 7.4? at 2003-02-26 06:35:03 from Neil Conway

Responses

  • Re: 7.4? at 2003-02-26 07:48:15 from Ed L.
  • Re: 7.4? at 2003-02-26 07:53:42 from Ed L.
  • Re: 7.4? at 2003-02-26 10:55:51 from Hervé Piedvache

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ed L. 2003-02-26 07:48:15 Re: 7.4?
Previous Message Neil Conway 2003-02-26 06:40:25 Re: WITHOUT OIDS