| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)007Marketing(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Open source databases '60 per cent cheaper' |
| Date: | 2006-11-22 18:59:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1164221995.10359.43.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 10:07 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > If there is some great replication solution that a lot of people need
> > and it will only work with a change to core, that change might make it
> > in.
> >
> > However, there may not be nifty syntax changes nor GUCs in core to
> > support a specific implementation of a replicator.
>
> There is definitely another reason though :). Adding a replication
> solution that is integrated *will* increase development overhead in
> terms of support.
>
> Replication touches (alot) of places.
>
Yes, you're absolutely right.
However, hypothetically, if there was a great replication solution that
helped a lot of people, and it needed some changes to core, I don't
think the patch would be rejected as long as:
(1) The changes are as minimal as possible
(2) The changes are applicable to an entire class of replication, not
just a single implementation
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-11-22 19:07:04 | Re: Integrating Replication into Core |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-11-22 18:58:34 | Re: Integrating Replication into Core |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-11-22 19:07:04 | Re: Integrating Replication into Core |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-11-22 18:58:34 | Re: Integrating Replication into Core |