On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 11:19 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I don't mean that it has bugs. I mean that it's far too easy to get it
> wrong and far too hard to get it right. I have reduced my uses to a
> couple of cases where I have worked out, with some trial and error,
> recipes that I follow. If I find these facilities complex to use, and I
> make virtually 100% of my living working with Postgres, what are more
> ordinary users going to say? That's why I think we need at the very
> least some tools for supporting the most common use cases, and hiding
> the messy details.
I've never had a private comment complaining about the facilities in a
general way except from you and Josh Drake, though obviously I field
bugs and questions from users frequently. I regularly get emails saying
thanks, easy to use, much easier to manage than any other form of
replication. Most frequent comment is "I was told it was really hard,
but I see now that it is easy to understand and use".
People with HA or backup experience from other databases usually have no
problem understanding the concepts or the implementation.
> And no, I haven't even begun to think of what such tools might look like.
That's OK. Wanting it to be different is the first step. I want to
improve it as well, though without removing features.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-05-15 18:08:39|
|Subject: Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot |
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2009-05-15 15:46:19|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #4796: Recovery followed by backup
creates unrecoverable WAL-file|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-05-15 19:40:05|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #4796: Recovery followed by backup creates unrecoverable WAL-file|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-05-15 16:49:32|
|Subject: Re: Is this the expected behaviour for DDL-query execution? |