On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 04:44:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 09:54:03PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I think the consensus in the core team was that having > >> synchronous log shipping in 8.4 would already be a worthwhile > >> feature by itself.
I'm sorry if I was unclear on this. I don't disagree that it would be a worthy feature. I do disagree with the idea, given this goal, that we can expect to ship 8.4 without a built-in replication and have that be good enough by itself. > > If that was in fact the consensus of the core team, and what I've > > been seeing from several core members in this thread makes that > > idea unclear, it's out of step with the stated goal of the > > feature. Having some kind of half-way, > > doesn't-actually-quite-work-out-of-the-box "replication" will make > > things worse and not better. > > What is your justification for denigrating this plan with that? Or > are you merely complaining because we know we won't be all the way > there in 8.4? Again, just my humble opinion, but given the stated goal, which I agree with, I'd say it's worth holding up 8.4 until some kind of out-of-the-box replication advances that goal, where Yet Another Toolkit Suitable For People Who Are Already Database Kernel Hackers To Build Replication Systems On Top Of does not. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
