Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
Date: 2008-12-23 13:41:41
Message-ID: 1230039701.4793.828.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 18:36 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:

> Personally, I would like to have a
> simple setup where I can initially setup primary and standby and they
> continue to work in a single-failure mode without any additional
> administrative overhead (such as rsync). But that's just me and I
> don't know what the preferred option in the field.

If you want a tripod, you need to turn up with all 3 legs. :-)

PostgreSQL is a working product, not a framework or a function library.
We're not going to add code that has no function at all other than as
part of a larger feature, unless we add the whole feature.

I'm happy if that whole feature is added. If we do add it, it will be a
utility like "pg_resync". So in admin terms it will be almost identical
to using rsync, just a specific version that minimizes effort even more
than rsync does currently. The only difference as I see it would be some
gain in performance, but we don't need to send the whole database down
the wire again in either case.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-12-23 13:48:45 Re: Lock conflict behavior?
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2008-12-23 13:07:46 Re: Lock conflict behavior?