On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 17:03 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 5/11/10, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 08:33 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > > What are the advantages of anything proposed over the current
> > > implementations used by Londiste and Slony?
> >
> > It would be good to have a core technology that provided a generic
> > transport to other remote databases.
>
> I suspect there still should be some sort of middle-ware code
> that reads the data from Postgres, and writes to other db.
>
> So the task of the GDQ should be to make data available to that
> reader, not be "transport to remote databases", no?
Yes for maximum flexibility, user code at both ends would be good.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com