From: | Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2008-05-29 17:11:08 |
Message-ID: | 483EE3AC.9050309@Sheeky.Biz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter wrote:
> This part is a deal-killer. It's a giant up-hill slog to sell warm
> standby to those in charge of making resources available because the
> warm standby machine consumes SA time, bandwidth, power, rack space,
> etc., but provides no tangible benefit, and this feature would have
> exactly the same problem.
>
> IMHO, without the ability to do read-only queries on slaves, it's not
> worth doing this feature at all.
+1
I would think that a read-only WAL slave is more valuable than a
real-time backup. (especially as the topic is about adding slaves not
increasing the effectiveness of backups)
I also think that starting with a read-only WAL slave will ease the
transition between delayed slave updating and real-time slave updating.
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-29 17:37:14 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-29 16:40:14 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2008-05-29 17:18:13 | Re: Extending grant insert on tables to sequences |
Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-05-29 16:48:56 | Duplicate Key Error from ANALYZE |