On Thursday 29 May 2008 09:54:03 am Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 5/29/08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > The Postgres core team met at PGCon to discuss a few issues, the largest
> > of which is the need for simple, built-in replication for PostgreSQL.
> > Historically the project policy has been to avoid putting replication
> > into core PostgreSQL, so as to leave room for development of competing
> > solutions, recognizing that there is no "one size fits all" replication
> > solution. However, it is becoming clear that this policy is hindering
> > acceptance of PostgreSQL to too great an extent, compared to the benefit
> > it offers to the add-on replication projects. Users who might consider
> > PostgreSQL are choosing other database systems because our existing
> > replication options are too complex to install and use for simple cases.
> > In practice, simple asynchronous single-master-multiple-slave
> > replication covers a respectable fraction of use cases, so we have
> > concluded that we should allow such a feature to be included in the core
> > project. We emphasize that this is not meant to prevent continued
> > development of add-on replication projects that cover more complex use
> > cases.
> >
> > We believe that the most appropriate base technology for this is
> > probably real-time WAL log shipping, as was demoed by NTT OSS at PGCon.
> > We hope that such a feature can be completed for 8.4.
>
> +1
>
> Although I would explain it more shortly - we do need a solution for
> lossless failover servers and such solution needs to live in core backend.
+1 for lossless failover (ie, synchronous)