On Thursday 29 May 2008 09:54:03 am Marko Kreen wrote: > On 5/29/08, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Postgres core team met at PGCon to discuss a few issues, the largest > > of which is the need for simple, built-in replication for PostgreSQL. > > Historically the project policy has been to avoid putting replication > > into core PostgreSQL, so as to leave room for development of competing > > solutions, recognizing that there is no "one size fits all" replication > > solution. However, it is becoming clear that this policy is hindering > > acceptance of PostgreSQL to too great an extent, compared to the benefit > > it offers to the add-on replication projects. Users who might consider > > PostgreSQL are choosing other database systems because our existing > > replication options are too complex to install and use for simple cases. > > In practice, simple asynchronous single-master-multiple-slave > > replication covers a respectable fraction of use cases, so we have > > concluded that we should allow such a feature to be included in the core > > project. We emphasize that this is not meant to prevent continued > > development of add-on replication projects that cover more complex use > > cases. > > > > We believe that the most appropriate base technology for this is > > probably real-time WAL log shipping, as was demoed by NTT OSS at PGCon. > > We hope that such a feature can be completed for 8.4. > > +1 > > Although I would explain it more shortly - we do need a solution for > lossless failover servers and such solution needs to live in core backend.
+1 for lossless failover (ie, synchronous) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
