From: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion |
Date: | 2004-05-17 07:11:20 |
Message-ID: | 40A86598.5020301@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
>>Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>
>>>>Agreed, but you are a "me too", not a huge percentage of our userbase.
>>>
>>>How do you know? Have you polled our complete userbase?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Basically, after 6-7 months of development, I want more than a vacuum
>>>>patch and a new cache replacement policy. I want something big, in
>>>>fact, several big things.
>>>
>>>Most likely won't happen, since what is considered big by you isn't
>>>necessarily what is considered big by someone else ... as Hannu, and I
>>>believe, Jan, have so far pointed out to you ...
>>
>>I can't poll for everything. I make my own educated guesses.
>
>
> Based on what though?
>
> All the clients that I deal with on a daily basis generally care about is
> performance ... that is generally what they upgrade for ... so, my
> 'educated guess' based on real world users is that Win32, PITR and nested
> transactions are not important ... tablespaces, I have one client that has
> asked about something *similar* to it, but tablespaces, for him, doesn't
> come close to what they would like to see ...
>
> So, my 'educated guess' is different then yours is ... does that make
> yours wrong? Nope ... just means we have different sample sets to work
> with ...
>
Interesting.
We have made COMPLETELY different experiences.
There is one question people ask me daily: "When can we have sychronous
replication and PITR?".
Performance is not a problem here. People are more interested in
stability and "enterprise" features such as those I have mentioned above.
I am still wondering about two things:
Somebody has posted a 2PC patch - I haven't seen too many comments
Somebody has posted sync multimaster replication (PgCluster) - nobody
has commented on that. Maybe I am the only one who has ever tried it ...
Most likely this is not very encourageing for the developers involved ...
Regards,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/720/10 1234567 or +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Karppinen | 2004-05-17 07:13:54 | Re: Rough draft for Unicode-aware UPPER()/LOWER()/INITCAP() |
Previous Message | Nikola Milutinovic | 2004-05-17 07:00:39 | Re: PgSQL 7.4.2 - NaN on Tru64 UNIX |