From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2008-05-29 15:46:22 |
Message-ID: | 1212075982.26576.10.camel@jd-laptop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 08:21 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:12:55AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> This part is a deal-killer. It's a giant up-hill slog to sell warm
> standby to those in charge of making resources available because the
> warm standby machine consumes SA time, bandwidth, power, rack space,
> etc., but provides no tangible benefit, and this feature would have
> exactly the same problem.
>
> IMHO, without the ability to do read-only queries on slaves, it's not
> worth doing this feature at all.
The only question I have is... what does this give us that PITR doesn't
give us?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Douglas McNaught | 2008-05-29 15:48:25 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2008-05-29 15:40:57 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Douglas McNaught | 2008-05-29 15:48:25 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Justin | 2008-05-29 15:45:10 | Re: [PERFORM] Memory question on win32 systems |