From: | Gustavo Tonini <gustavotonini(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication on the backend |
Date: | 2005-12-08 18:28:29 |
Message-ID: | 9c31dd0d0512081028p1e06787dj@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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>:
>
> 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
> 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
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-08 18:42:57 | Re: Vertical Partitioning with TOAST |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-12-08 18:25:26 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |