On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:21 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:28 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >> Mammoth Replicator is not synchronous anyway ...
> > >
> > > That's a shame. I thought we might be able get a head start in that way.
> > Huh? Why should that be a shame?
> Because I wanted it to be synchronous and it is not...
In theory, it wouldn't be too difficult (especially once 1.8 is done) to
make Replicator Synchronous. We haven't worked out all the gory details
but it is certainly plausible.
But to be honest, the demand for Synchronous is far less than the hype.
Joshua D. Drake
> > Do you have anything better to propose?
> On -hackers, I think, but not yet.
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dhanaraj||Date: 2006-11-22 16:51:04|
|Subject: Re: how to profile PostGreSQL|
|Previous:||From: Greg Mitchell||Date: 2006-11-22 16:41:10|
|Subject: Re: bad plan with custom data types|
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Shane Ambler||Date: 2006-11-22 17:00:20|
|Subject: Re: Open source databases '60 per cent cheaper'|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2006-11-22 16:02:38|
|Subject: Re: Collateral for LISA 06|