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

Re: Streaming replication status

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Streaming replication status
Date: 2010-01-13 04:26:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 15:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > The final commit-fest is in 5 days --- this is not the time for design
> > > discussion and feature additions.
> > 
> > +10 --- the one reason I can see for deciding to bounce SR is that there
> > still seem to be design discussions going on.  It is WAY TOO LATE for
> > that folks.  It's time to be thinking "what's the least we have to do to
> > make this shippable?"
> I've not asked to bounce SR, I am strongly in favour of it going in,
> having been supporting the project on and off for 18 months.
> There is not much sense being talked here. I have asked for sufficient
> monitoring to allow us to manage it in production, which is IMHO the
> minimum required to make it shippable. This is a point I have mentioned

Let me explain why Simon feels he is misquoted --- Simon, you are saying
above that "sufficient monitoring" is a minimum requirement, meaning it
is necessary, and I and others are saying if we need to design a
monitoring system at this stage to ship SR, then let's forget about this
feature for 8.5.

In summary, by requiring monitoring, you are encouraging others to just
abandon SR completely for 8.5.  We didn't say you were suggesting
abandonment SR, it is just that the monitoring requirement is making
abandonment of SR for 8.5 more likely because the addition of monitoring
could hopelessly delay 8.5 because we have no idea even how to implement

> over the course of many months, not a sudden additional thought.
> Overall, it isn't sensible or appropriate to oppose my viewpoint by
> putting words into my mouth that have never been said, which applies to
> most people's comments to me on this recent thread.

Yea, yea, everyone seems to misquote you Simon, at least from your
perspective.  You must admit that you seem to feel that way a lot.

> If the majority thinks that being able to find out the current replay
> point of recovery is all we need to manage replication then I will
> happily defer to that view, without changing my opinion that we need
> more. It should be clear that we didn't even have that before I raised
> the point.

Good --- let's move forward with a minimal feature set to get SR in 8.5
in a reasonable timeframe.  If we have extra time we can add stuff but
let's not require it from the start.

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-01-13 05:10:27
Subject: Re: Streaming replication status
Previous:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2010-01-13 04:11:48
Subject: Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

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