| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Jens-Wolfhard Schicke <drahflow(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction-controlled robustness for replication |
| Date: | 2008-08-12 20:04:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1218571463.5343.163.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 15:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> What is the attraction of logical application of the WAL logs?
> >> Transmitting to a server with different architecture?
>
> > Yes,
>
> > * different release
> > * different encoding
> > * different CPU architecture
> > * (with the correct transform) a different DBMS
>
> The notion that the WAL logs will ever be portable across such
> differences is so ... so ... well, it's barely worth laughing at.
I expect to begin discussion of how that might be achieved in a few
days. I understand the starting place for your thinking, but am not
deterred because I see some solutions. I feel certain you will point out
some difficulties, but I think it is worth doing. Please lets start
those discussions from a neutral point. If you find a real showstopper,
then so be it. Sorry for the delay.
Bruce was asking about why I might want that. If we can at least agree
there is a use case then it helps.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2008-08-12 20:08:36 | Re: Plugin system like Firefox |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-12 19:46:42 | Re: SeqScan costs |