| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Standby Mode |
| Date: | 2006-08-02 22:34:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1154558070.2475.16.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 13:05 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> How close do your PITR patches take us to Oracle's "Standby Databases"?
> I'm trying to decide whether it's a "major features" for PR purposes or
> not.
That was pretty much the sweet spot I was aiming at. Many databases
support such functionality.
Oracle supports five gradations of functionality, of which we hit first
two. There is a sixth level also, which we can hit using Hannu's ideas
but thats a roll-your own for now.
It would be fair to say that we may support Standby Databases with
asynchronous log file shipping.
[I have an outstanding question on how to include LWlock support into
the archiver, required to flesh out the feature set, and of course
assuming these patches being accepted.]
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rick Gigger | 2006-08-02 22:43:11 | Re: 8.2 feature set |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-08-02 22:09:33 | Re: 8.2 feature set |