From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2008-05-30 01:25:49 |
Message-ID: | 483F579D.9080307@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>>> There's no point in having read-only slave queries if you don't have a
>>> trustworthy method of getting the data to them.
>
>> O.k. I was with you until here. Log shipping ala pg_standby works fine
>> now sans read-only slave. No, it isn't out of the box which I can see an
>> argument for but it is certainly trustworthy. Or do you mean the
>> synchronous part?
>
> How much testing has pg_standby really gotten? Some, sure, but it's a
> contrib module that wasn't even there before 8.3. Even ignoring the lag
> issue, I wouldn't trust it a whole lot if I were a DBA responsible for
> valuable data. As much as some folk would like to think that contrib
> is mainstream, it's not really in the same league as far as testing
> coverage goes.
This is a pretty telling statement.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-05-30 01:26:36 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-05-30 00:57:21 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-05-30 01:26:36 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-05-30 00:57:21 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |