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

Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

From: James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>
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: 2008-06-01 19:57:00
Message-ID: 4842FF0C.1020604@mansionfamily.plus.com (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.
>   
That's not something that squares with my experience *at all*, which 
admitedly is entirely in
investment banks. Business continuity is king, and in some places the 
warm standby rep
from the database vendor is trusted more than block-level rep from the 
SAN vendor
(though that may be changing to some extent in favour of the SAN).

James


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: James MansionDate: 2008-06-01 20:16:51
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous:From: James MansionDate: 2008-06-01 19:48:06
Subject: Re: replication hooks

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: James MansionDate: 2008-06-01 20:16:51
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Selena DeckelmannDate: 2008-06-01 19:22:51
Subject: BoF at OSCON 2008: Wednesday, July 23, 7:30pm

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