Re: Replication on the backend

What is the point of these questions? If you have a concrete, practical
proposal to make, please do so. Otherwise, you have already got the
answer from the people who are actually working on replication and
understand it far beyond abstract considerations. If you think there is
a good reason to do replication directly in the backend code rather than
as an addon, possibly using an agreed API, then you need to provide hard
evidence, not mere assertion or conjecture.

cheers

andrew

Gustavo Tonini wrote:

> Are you sure that no way to implement a generic aproach on the
> backend? What does specification say? Does Oracle 10g have a core
> implementation of replication (cluster)?
>
> Gustavo.
>
>
> 2005/12/7, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
> <mailto:ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>>:
>
> 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 <mailto: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
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
>