Re: Integrating Replication into Core

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Integrating Replication into Core
Date: 2006-11-26 04:53:59
Message-ID: 45691DE7.2000502@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 11:05:34AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Actually I don't buy this argument. The only major change in
>
> Ok, good. So why isn't Postgres-R something we have _now_?

That's is a good question and as I mentioned, I don't know much about
Postgres-R. My point was directly to the argument that a fast moving
PostgreSQL somehow limits the ability for replication to be built. That
argument, I believe is false.

I originally responded to the rest of your email but thought better of
it. The only thing I can say is, my experience is that something like
replication will only be productively completed, outside the community.

Jan, for the most part created his own community with Slony. Postgres-R
is doing the same as is the others such as pgPool.

The nature that they are all their own communities, not to mention
several closed source products (Replicator, Unicluster) pretty much sets
the whole thing up to fail IMHO.

Otherwise you are just hearding cats.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> A
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Boreham 2006-11-26 16:42:41 Re: Integrating Replication into Core
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2006-11-26 04:16:35 Re: Integrating Replication into Core

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeroen T. Vermeulen 2006-11-26 11:35:24 "Optional ident" authentication
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2006-11-26 04:23:12 Re: [CORE] RC1 blocker issues