Re: Replication in main PostgreSQL codebase

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Matt Browne wrote:

> On 06 July 2004 16:41, Christopher Browne wrote:
>>> I've taken a look at the replication solutions already available,
>>> including the sterling effort made on Slony-I, but we're really
>>> looking for integrated, base-level support rather than an add-in.
>>
>> The problem is that "replication" doesn't tend to mean one
>> thing, but people rather have different ideas of what it means.
>
> I don't necessarily agree with that. It's true that one size hardly ever
> fits all, especially when it comes to implementation, but I think people
> have a certain replication feature set in mind when they come across a DBMS
> that purports to be enterprise-class...
>
> ... Just like what's been listed in the 'Urgent' section of the TODO list
> since (I think) 7.2, in fact. (Except perhaps the more complex features like
> multi-master replication.)
>
> I didn't post my original message to the pgsql-hackers list because I wanted
> to respect the ominous warning about trying other lists first.
>
> Not to discount your comments, Christopher, but is there anyone on this list
> who could give me an official and authoritative line on the inclusion of
> in-built replication functionality?

Christopher is correct ... if there was such a thing as an 'end all, be
all' replication solution, there wouldn't be a half a dozen different ones
out there ...

It would be unwise for *anyone* to state "never" as far as inclusion of
built-in replication, but since the general consensus is that there is no
such thing as the 'all-encompassing solution' for this, the chances of one
ever coming about that would be of a scope that would be acceptable to be
built-in is next to zero ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664