| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Date: | 2011-09-21 17:03:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4E7A18F8.2090609@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yeah, I get it. But I think standby would confuse them, too, just in
> a different set of situations.
Other than PITR, what situations?
PITR is used by a minority of our users. Binary replication, if not
already used by a majority, will be in the future (it's certainly the
majority of my professional clients). Further, PITR is usually
something which is either handled by vendor backup management software,
or by professional DBAs, whereas replication is used by developers with
little or no DBA support.
Why should we make terminology obscure for the majority usecase to make
it clear for the minority one? Especially since the majority use-case
has almost all the newbies?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-21 17:07:18 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-09-21 17:03:17 | Re: sequence locking |