Re: Integrating Replication into Core

Have you looked at the new HA/load balancing section of the docs?

http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/high-availability.html

I got a lot of feedback on that. Perhaps it can be a starting point for
you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 11:05:34AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Actually I don't buy this argument. The only major change in
>
> Ok, good. So why isn't Postgres-R something we have _now_? The work
> that I've seen on it, so far (and I speak as someone who invested a
> significant amount of staff time, cash money, and -- frankly --
> "political" credibility in software based on that idea) is that there
> isn't a way to make it production-grade without pretty severe
> constraints on what it can do.
>
> It was that unhappy discovery that led me to say, "Can we please
> _write down_ what we think 'replication' might require, and what the
> trade-offs can be?" I'm trying to write requirements in public here;
> but all I get is silence. This frustrates me partly because, as
> someone who stuck his neck out to make sure Slony was released as
> free software, I hear a lot of demands for features people apparently
> want without much in the way of design proposals -- never mind code --
> to achieve those features. When Jan delivered the initial release of
> Slony, it was preceded by a design doc. I note on -hackers long
> emails from (for example) Tom doing something very similar when
> proposing a major feature. What I'm trying to do is to get the
> replication-interested community of PostgreSQL users to say "here's
> what we mean by 'replication'" before we all go off inventing the
> grammar. We need to have a clue about the domain of discourse before
> we start settling the variable assignments.
>
> It seems to me that every single replication discussion on -hackers
> amounts to a bunch of futile attempts by colour blind people (of
> which I am one) to describe the colour 'high note', while their
> interlocutors describe the sound 'red'. I'm trying to get us to say
> what it would mean even to do the describing.
>
> Specifying requirements for what software is supposed to do is one of
> those thankless tasks that everyone complains is never done in the
> free software community. I am offering, earnestly, to do that. I
> just need a few people to tell me what _they think_ the software in
> question ought to do. I set up a mailing list. I have solicited
> comments. I'm not sure what else to do, but so far, I have the
> positive remarks of Jose (GORDA), the remarks of Markus (which amount
> to "this is a waste of time", unless I misread him), and nothing
> else.
>
> Surely, in a community that spends time on the topic of whether
> replication "should be in the back end", we oughta be able to come up
> with 10 or so people who are willing to say what "being in the back
> end" would mean. At the moment, this trivial goal is all I'm aiming
> for.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
> When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
> --attr. John Maynard Keynes
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +