From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replication docs update |
Date: | 2012-03-21 16:06:27 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEyOtiTgkVWw4D_z7QbajgJzD_XnyzePqa8cgtnuv9SojQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 16:44, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:01:34PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 22:26, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Our chapter, "Comparison of Different Solutions", needs an update to use
>> > our new streaming replication terminology, and an update to mention the
>> > synchronous option.
>> >
>> > Patch attached. I would like to apply it to head and 9.1.
>>
>> Is it really a good idea to remove the name "hot standby" where you've
>> done so? It's a term that's pretty well set by now. Maybe instad "hot
>> standby using transaction log replication" instead of taking it away
>> completely?
>
> Well, hot/warm standby is really a side-feature of replication, not a
> replication technology itself. WAL streaming is a replication
True. I'm just saying it's a term that many are familiar with, and
thus removing it doesn't entirely help. Removing PITR is a good idea
however :-)
> technology. For example, Shared Disk Failover is technically a warm
> standby too.
Pretty sure Shared Disk qualifies as cold standby.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-03-21 17:16:30 | Re: Replication docs update |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-03-21 15:44:38 | Re: Replication docs update |