Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
>>> Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
>>> from Heikki:
>>> # IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't in such good shape, I'm
>>> afraid. I've said
>>> # this before, but I'm not happy with the "built from spare parts"
>>> nature of it. You
>>> # shouldn't have to configure an archive, file-based log shipping using rsync or
>>> # whatever, and pg_standby. All that is in addition to the direct
>>> connection between
>>> # master and slave. The slave really should be able to just connect to
>>> the master, and
>>> # download all the WAL it needs directly. That's a huge usability
>>> issue if left as is,
>>> # but requires very large architectural changes to fix.
>> I believe so, see second bullet point in:
> That is exactly what I am against. Note the words "get rid of".
> This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and various
> other techniques. It sounds neater, but it implies removal of useful
OK, so let's assume that we'll provide an extra facility that doesn't
take anything away but which provides for close to zero config setup for
the simple case. Frankly, that's what the vast majority of people want,
in my experience.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2009-02-25 21:15:50|
|Subject: Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2009-02-25 21:08:41|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby, running xacts, subtransactions|