Yes, I forgot to include hackers on that mail. Anyway,
relax Jim, I'm not trying to invade anyone's turf
here. There seems to be support for the idea of
providing an interface plug for replication modules,
which is fine with me. If you have any constructive
criticism towards that, I'd be most happy to consider
it and try to find an accomodation.
--- Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> wrote:
> Adding -hackers back in...
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Chahine Hamila
> >Sent: Fri 8/25/2006 8:36 PM
> >To: Jim Nasby
> >Subject: Re: [HACKERS] integration of pgcluster
> into postgresql
> >> First, you need to review all the past discussion
> >> about the very
> >> intentional decision not to build any replication
> >> into the core
> >> database.
> >I would gladly do so. Can you send me any pointer?
> I don't really have any handy, but try searching the
> hackers archive for 'replication'.
> >> Second, pgcluster is (AFAIK) command-based
> >> replication, which has some
> >> very, very serious drawbacks. If PostgreSQL were
> >> include a
> >> replication solution, I'd certainly hope it
> >> be command-based.
> >It's better than no replication at all... It's good
> >enough for many uses.
> As is Slony. And dbmirror. And pgpool. So where do
> we draw the line? Should we include all four?
> ---------------------------(end of
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2006-08-29 14:25:10|
|Subject: python / 7.4 / FC5 / x86_64|
|Previous:||From: Teodor Sigaev||Date: 2006-08-29 13:59:32|
|Subject: Re: tsvector/tsearch equality and/or portability issue|