| From: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standard replication interface? |
| Date: | 2002-08-15 17:57:08 |
| Message-ID: | 87znvoqa2z.fsf@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> writes:
> In what way would providing a generic interface to *monitor* be a
> "waste of time"?
As I said -- I don't really see the need for a bunch of replication
implementations, and therefore I don't see the need for a generic API
to make the whole mess (slightly) more manageable.
> In what way would that prevent someone from "producing a readlly
> good* replication implementation"?
It wouldn't -- it's just that if/when such an implementation exists
and everyone who needs replication is using it, a "generic monitoring
API" would be pointless.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-15 18:02:06 | Re: Long strings, short varchars |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-15 17:53:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Companies involved in development |