From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2008-05-29 15:53:03 |
Message-ID: | 20080529155303.GQ16218@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 08:46:22AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 08:21 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > This part is a deal-killer. It's a giant up-hill slog to sell
> > warm standby to those in charge of making resources available
> > because the warm standby machine consumes SA time, bandwidth,
> > power, rack space, etc., but provides no tangible benefit, and
> > this feature would have exactly the same problem.
> >
> > IMHO, without the ability to do read-only queries on slaves, it's
> > not worth doing this feature at all.
>
> The only question I have is... what does this give us that PITR
> doesn't give us?
It looks like a wrapper for PITR to me, so the gain would be ease of
use.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2008-05-29 15:55:10 | Re: State of PostgreSQL, BOF at OSCON? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-05-29 15:49:54 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-05-29 15:56:16 | Re: [PERFORM] Memory question on win32 systems |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2008-05-29 15:52:48 | Re: [PERFORM] Memory question on win32 systems |