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

Re: Integrating Replication into Core

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Integrating Replication into Core
Date: 2006-11-28 16:58:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:19:51PM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> (I note you don't count my version of Postgres-R (8), that might be 
> reasonable depending on your definition of 'having Postgres-R'.)

Yes; what I meant was "production-grade, ready to go."  I've played
with your code.  I'm mightily impressed that you managed to get it
working.  But I don't think it's ready for production use tomorrow in
the environments where this sort of availability is actually worth
the cost (think "money depends on this").  That's what I mean by

> and making it production grade software really takes a lot of time. IMO
> this is where replication solutions could work together, because all of
> them need to simulate a cluster somehow, to test their project. But this
> certainly has nothing to do with PostgreSQL Core.

I agree with you that such supporting tools would be a very good
thing.  Maybe nothing else is needed.  Like I said before, a negative
result is still a result.

> Another point for me is that the feedback I got on Postgres-R since
> Toronto is very close to zero. Some people haven't even noticed that
> there is Postgres-R code for 8.2. 

Well, part of the problem is there isn't much to say to code that I
can't look at.  I can play with it on the live CD, but so far the
source isn't on the web page at, which is the only
source I know for it.  This makes the whole matter trickier for
potential adopters, because it's basically a black box.

> As you surely have noticed, I've been discussing forth and back with
> Bruce about replication for the documentation. I've been doing that
> because I wanted to clarify what 'replication' is, what we are talking
> about when we say 'multi-master replication' or 'data partitioning', etc..

Yes, I think those docs are very good.  But it's one thing to say,
"This is what replication means," &c., and quite another to say,
"Here are the sorts of things we plan to do, which have to work with
that pile of code over there."

> I'm sorry if this sounded that negative.

No, not negative.  Remember, as I said, if it turns out that we can't
actually come up with an outline of replication framework necessary
conditions, we have also discovered something.  That's a useful
result, because it tells us that the next thing we need to do
is figure out where the exclusive features are, so we can say "you
can have A or B, but not both."

> through and written down. And for sure I'll let you know if and how you 
> or others can help me.

Ok, thanks.


Andrew Sullivan  | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.  What do you do sir?
		--attr. John Maynard Keynes

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-11-28 17:03:13
Subject: Re: Short writes
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-11-28 16:53:35
Subject: Re: FAQs and Port Status

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Roderick A. AndersonDate: 2006-11-28 17:02:18
Subject: Re: Collateral for LISA 06
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2006-11-28 16:55:53
Subject: Re: Collateral for LISA 06

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