On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 03:30:29PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > That's not the point, though. I don't think a Postgres clone with a GTM > solves any particular problem that's not already solved by the existing > forks. However, if you have a clone at home and you make a GTM work on > it, then you take the GTM as a patch and post it for discussion. > There's no need for hooks for that. Just make sure your GTM solves the > problem that it is supposed to solve. > > Excuse me if I've missed the discussion elsewhere -- why does > PostgresPro have *two* GTMs instead of a single one?
I think the issue is that a GTM that works for a low-latency network doesn't work well for a high-latency network, so the high-latency GTM has fewer features and guarantees. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
