Greg Smith wrote:
> Sure, which is why I was volunteering to help on this part. Put me in a
> room full of developers with different opinions and let me listen to the
> argument, and I can usually sort through the whole mess to figure out a
> reasonable summary at the end anyway.
Cool, so you sure seem to be the right person for summarizing the PgCon
2010 clustering meeting.
> Basically I'd like to see *short* answers to each of the following
> questions for every item listed there:
Uhm.. not sure if you'll get *short* answers, but well... :-) let's
[skipped a nice list of crisp and clear questions]
> ..but not enough dependency tracking
> that leads to a clear roadmap for how everything is going to come
> together in the end.
Dependency tracking? I'm not sure what you mean here. I think there's a
lot of code duplication in all of the clustering projects (and people
continue to add even more). IMO the real purpose behind that list is to
combine some of that code into a common component. Only then the
individual projects can adapt to depend on that component (instead of
their inferior custom duplicate variant).
> Not like this list is overflowing with
> traffic anyway.
Hehe.. as with all replication mailing lists so far. (And the
change-the-name one as well). Creation of mailing lists by itself
obviously (and sadly) doesn't solve problems.
In response to
pgsql-cluster-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Markus Wanner||Date: 2010-02-06 09:13:02|
|Subject: Global Deadlock Information|
|Previous:||From: Markus Wanner||Date: 2010-02-06 07:50:38|
|Subject: Exporting Snapshots|