On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Greg Stark wrote: >> >> Well you can go sit in the same corner as Simon with your high >> availability servers. >> >> I want my ability to run large batch queries without any performance >> or reliability impact on the primary server. >> > > Thank you for combining a small personal attack with a selfish commentary > about how yours is the only valid viewpoint. Saves me a lot of trouble > replying to your messages, can just ignore them instead if this is how > you're going to act.
Eh? That's not what I meant at all. Actually it's kind of the exact opposite of what I meant. What I meant was that your description of the "High Availability first and foremost" is only one possible use case. Simon in the past expressed the same single-minded focus on that use case. It's a perfectly valid use case and I would probably agree if we had to choose just one it would be the most important. But we don't have to choose just one. There are other valid use cases such as load balancing and isolating your large batch queries from your production systems. I don't want us to throw out all these other use cases because we only consider high availability as the only use case we're interested in. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
