Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: GDQ iimplementation

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-cluster-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GDQ iimplementation
Date: 2010-05-11 15:11:03
Message-ID: 1273590663.308.241.camel@ebony (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-cluster-hackers
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 10:38 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:

> Slony replication has meant both too from the beginning.

You've done a brilliant job and I have huge respect for that. 

MHO: The world changes and new solutions emerge. Assimilation of
technology into lower layers of the stack has been happening for years.
The core parts of Slony should be assimilated, just as TCP/IP now exists
as part of the OS, to the benefit of all. Various parts of Slony have
already moved to core. Slony continues to have huge potential, though as
part of an evolution, not in all cases fulfilling the same role it did
at the beginning. Log shipping cannot easily exist outside of core,
though SQL shipping can: but should it? How much more could we do?

 Simon Riggs 

In response to


pgsql-cluster-hackers by date

Next:From: Marko KreenDate: 2010-05-11 15:20:42
Subject: Re: GDQ iimplementation
Previous:From: Jan WieckDate: 2010-05-11 14:38:35
Subject: Re: GDQ iimplementation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group