On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 15:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> >>> Josh has completely failed to make a case that
> >>> that should be the default.
> >> Agreed.
> > In what way have a failed to make a case?
> You're assuming that we should set up the default behavior to support
> replication and penalize those who aren't using it.
> Considering that
> we haven't even *had* replication until now, it seems a pretty safe
> bet that the majority of our users aren't using it and won't appreciate
> that default. We routinely expend large amounts of effort to avoid
> cross-version performance regressions, and I don't see that this one
> is acceptable when others aren't.
> I entirely agree that it ought to be easier to set up replication.
> But there's a difference between having a big red EASY button for people
> to push, and pushing it for them.
Replication is an option, not a requirement. So +1 on Tom's argument
> regards, tom lane
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jesper Krogh||Date: 2010-10-27 19:47:23|
|Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement
compared to Oracle|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-10-27 19:38:17|
|Subject: Re: Simplifying replication |