| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2008-05-29 21:09:28 |
| Message-ID: | 483F1B88.208@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
David,
> I think having master-slave replication in the core using WAL is a
> *great* thing to do, doable, a good path to go on, etc., and I think
> it's worth holding up 8.4 until we have at least one actual
> out-of-the-box version of same.
Ah, ok. Well, I can tell you that the core team is also united on the
value of time-based as opposed to feature-based release cycles. *if* we
can develop this in time for 8.4, everybody would be overjoyed, but I
also think we should be realistic.
> People have hinted that we might be able to get both a synchronous one
> and an asynchronous one based on WAL, which would be even better. :)
That's the idea, yes. No reason to dump asynch WAL copying when it's
already working.
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2008-05-29 21:29:01 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2008-05-29 21:02:08 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2008-05-29 21:29:01 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2008-05-29 21:02:08 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |