Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: integration of pgcluster into postgresql

From: Chahine Hamila <chahine(dot)hamila(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Subject: Re: integration of pgcluster into postgresql
Date: 2006-08-26 18:18:04
Message-ID: 20060826181804.11951.qmail@web57102.mail.re3.yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Support of PGCluster-I, which we're discussing here,
> is being dropped
> in favor of the shared-disk PGCluster-II which was
> demonstrated at the
> anniversary conference.  IIRC, PGCluster-I does use
> command-based
> replication but is merged into the parser in such a
> way as to make it
> work quite well--unlike the man-in-the-middle
> approach taken by
> pgpool.

A shared disk approach doesn't fullfill the needs of
everyone. So I guess PGCluster I and II would answer
different needs and can co-exist.

> 
> > Finally, pgcluster is very out-of-date. The last
> version uses 8.0.1 and
> > was released on Mar. 7, 2005. If the author can't
> find the time to
> > maintain it, I don't see why that burden should be
> put on the shoulders
> > of this community.
> 
> Umm, I don't know where you're looking Jim, but the
> last update was
> February 10, 2006 and it's for PostgreSQL 8.1.1. 
> Frankly, it has had
> a very good track record of development and bug
> fixes... so let's not
> make assumptions on (very large PostgreSQL) projects
> we're unfamiliar
> with.

8.1.2 actually, which I have updated to apply to
8.1.4. I posted a patch on the pgcluster mailing list
but I already have two significant fixes related to
pgcluster and one minor change related to the upgrade
itself. I am to use PGCluster in a real time embedded
fault-tolerant system, so I'm likely to emit a few
more patches in the way to make it more robust and
performant on some aspects. That said, my company
would feel more confortable with the idea that it's
part of the postgresql mainstream distro for many
obvious reasons - or we might drop postgresql
altogether - which is why I'm proposing myself to do
the necessary work to integrate it in postgresql if
there's interest.

It's pretty non intrusive for your average postgresql
user who won't see a difference, and very little so
for a postgresql developer. At the same time, anyone
wanting replication will have that option in standard.
It's all benefits. So, should I give it a try?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2006-08-26 18:35:02
Subject: Re: Autovacuum on by default?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-08-26 17:42:34
Subject: Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group