On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I'm not very clear what your response has to do with Stefan's comments. > > My general perspective is that MySQL released a simple design a year > ahead of us, which should be to our collective shame. I will be working > towards delivering something useful in this release.
I don't feel ashamed of our feature set and I am not out to beat MySQL or anyone else, just to deliver the best product that we can. Our community has different interests than the MySQL community and that is fine. Still, I don't disagree that we should be aiming at feature parity. <reads MySQL documentation> I see now that you've tried to design this feature in a way that is similar to MySQL's offering, which does have some value. But it appears to me that the documentation you've written here is substantially similar to the MySQL 5.5 reference documentation. That could get us into a world of legal trouble - that documentation is not even open source, let alone BSD. http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/replication-semisync.html > I would rather concentrate on a minimal set of functionality that we can > all agree on. Me too; and perhaps your proposal is it. But I think it's a shame we didn't put more work into standby registration when we had time to get that done. It might not be necessary, but it would have delivered some nice functionality that we are now not going to have for 9.1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
