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

Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

From: Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Date: 2008-05-29 17:11:08
Message-ID: 483EE3AC.9050309@Sheeky.Biz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
David Fetter wrote:

> This part is a deal-killer.  It's a giant up-hill slog to sell warm
> standby to those in charge of making resources available because the
> warm standby machine consumes SA time, bandwidth, power, rack space,
> etc., but provides no tangible benefit, and this feature would have
> exactly the same problem.
> 
> IMHO, without the ability to do read-only queries on slaves, it's not
> worth doing this feature at all.

+1

I would think that a read-only WAL slave is more valuable than a 
real-time backup. (especially as the topic is about adding slaves not 
increasing the effectiveness of backups)


I also think that starting with a read-only WAL slave will ease the 
transition between delayed slave updating and real-time slave updating.


-- 

Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz

Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2008-05-29 17:18:13
Subject: Re: Extending grant insert on tables to sequences
Previous:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2008-05-29 16:48:56
Subject: Duplicate Key Error from ANALYZE

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-05-29 17:37:14
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-05-29 16:40:14
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

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