Re: GDQ iimplementation

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-cluster-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GDQ iimplementation
Date: 2010-05-11 15:11:03
Message-ID: 1273590663.308.241.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-cluster-hackers

On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 10:38 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:

> Slony replication has meant both too from the beginning.

You've done a brilliant job and I have huge respect for that.

MHO: The world changes and new solutions emerge. Assimilation of
technology into lower layers of the stack has been happening for years.
The core parts of Slony should be assimilated, just as TCP/IP now exists
as part of the OS, to the benefit of all. Various parts of Slony have
already moved to core. Slony continues to have huge potential, though as
part of an evolution, not in all cases fulfilling the same role it did
at the beginning. Log shipping cannot easily exist outside of core,
though SQL shipping can: but should it? How much more could we do?

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-cluster-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Kreen 2010-05-11 15:20:42 Re: GDQ iimplementation
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2010-05-11 14:38:35 Re: GDQ iimplementation