From: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Matt Browne <list(dot)pgsql-admin(at)picton(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication in main PostgreSQL codebase |
Date: | 2004-07-06 20:41:59 |
Message-ID: | 59d991c4040706134115dc1dd0@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:07:33 -0300 (ADT), Marc G. Fournier
<scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> It would be unwise for *anyone* to state "never" as far as inclusion of
> built-in replication, but since the general consensus is that there is no
> such thing as the 'all-encompassing solution' for this, the chances of one
> ever coming about that would be of a scope that would be acceptable to be
> built-in is next to zero ...
I think what I run into is that while most of us would agree that the
"one size fits all" argument is useless from a technical perspective,
it's not the technical people that are usually the ones involved here.
>From a "marketing" perspective, it would be useful if PostgreSQL
included at least a single master, single slave replication model that
was easily enabled and set up. There is a subclass of the problem that
is common to most situations, which is the ability to have a "live"
backup. Perhaps the 'dbmirror' component in the 'contrib' directory
is enough, and it simply needs to be highlighted. It does meet some
subset of the needs out there.
Sadly, a lot of problems are simply marketing perceptions :/
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-07-06 21:39:44 | Re: Point in Time Recovery |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-06 20:29:51 | Re: Replication in main PostgreSQL codebase |