On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:55:42PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > David, > >>> 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. >> >> If that was in fact the consensus of the core team, > > It is. > >> 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. > > So, you've got a better implementation up your sleeve?
Nope. > I really don't get where you're coming from on this. Frankly, your > e-mails seem gauged to be merely disruptive without any intent of > constructive input. I'm sorry they've come across that way. That was not my intent. > If you're opposed to working on replication in the core, then just > say so. If you think that there's an easier way to develop M-S > replication in the core than using WAL, then please present your > solution. I think having master-slave replication in the core using WAL is a *great* thing to do, doable, a good path to go on, etc., and I think it's worth holding up 8.4 until we have at least one actual out-of-the-box version of same. People have hinted that we might be able to get both a synchronous one and an asynchronous one based on WAL, which would be even better. :) 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
