Re: integration of pgcluster into postgresql

Adding -hackers back in...

-----Original Message-----
>From: Chahine Hamila [mailto:chahine(dot)hamila(at)yahoo(dot)com]
>Sent: Fri 8/25/2006 8:36 PM
>To: Jim Nasby
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] integration of pgcluster into postgresql
>
>> First, you need to review all the past discussion
>> about the very
>> intentional decision not to build any replication
>> into the core
>> database.
>
>I would gladly do so. Can you send me any pointer?

I don't really have any handy, but try searching the hackers archive for 'replication'.

>> Second, pgcluster is (AFAIK) command-based
>> replication, which has some
>> very, very serious drawbacks. If PostgreSQL were to
>> include a
>> replication solution, I'd certainly hope it wouldn't
>> be command-based.
>
>It's better than no replication at all... It's good
>enough for many uses.

As is Slony. And dbmirror. And pgpool. So where do we draw the line? Should we include all four?