Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" <niranjan(dot)k(at)nsn(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches
Date: 2009-02-24 18:53:23
Message-ID: 49A44223.9060302@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>
>> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
>>
>
> I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
> users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that
> would be affected, or how to count them.
>
>

Perhaps so, but I would hope you would support what Heikki and others
have been talking about as an option for replication. The 2% shouldn't
hold back the remaining 98%.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-02-24 18:59:30 Re: Hot standby, recovery procs
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2009-02-24 18:51:58 Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches