| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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: | 2008-05-29 16:29:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1212078598.27385.4.camel@jd-laptop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 09:10 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > The only question I have is... what does this give us that PITR doesn't
> > give us?
>
> Since people seem to be unclear on what we're proposing:
>
> 8.4 Synchronous Warm Standby: makes PostgreSQL more suitable for HA
> systems by eliminating failover data loss and cutting failover time.
>
What does this give us that Solaris Cluster, RedHat Cluster, DRBD etc..
doesn't give us? I am not trying to be a poison pill, but I am just not
seeing the benefit over what solutions that already exist. I could
probably argue if I had more time, that this solution doesn't do
anything but make us look like we are half baked in implementation.
If the real goal is read-only slaves with synchronous capability, then
let's implement that. If we can't do that by 8.4 it gets pushed to 8.5.
We already have a dozen different utilities to give us what is being
currently proposed.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-05-29 16:32:22 | Re: State of PostgreSQL, BOF at OSCON? |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2008-05-29 16:27:38 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-05-29 16:35:41 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2008-05-29 16:27:38 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |