| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Future In-Core Replication |
| Date: | 2012-04-30 18:33:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wiDe3Pm7xG3zZ0odB-oDj5spRZ7zc9ajC0vDOPOoY7RA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> For example, you said that "MM replication alone is not a solution for
> large data or the general case". Why is that? Is the goal of your work
> really to do logical replciation, which allows for major version
> upgrades? Is that the defining feature?
TBH, I don't think MM replication belongs in the database at all.
Ditto any replication solution that implements 'eventual consistency'
such that after the fact conflict resolution is required. In an SQL
database, when a transaction commits, it should remain so. It belongs
in the application layer.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-30 18:35:20 | Re: Torn page hazard in ginRedoUpdateMetapage() |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-30 18:19:44 | Re: precision and scale functions for numeric |