From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
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 17:39:48 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.64.0805291328110.10679@westnet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 29 May 2008, David Fetter wrote:
> 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.
This is an interesting commentary on the priorities of the customers
you're selling to, but I don't think you can extrapolate from that too
much. The deployments I normally deal with won't run a system unless
there's a failover backup available, period, and the fact that such a
feature is not integrated into the core yet is a major problem for them.
Read-only slaves is a very nice to have, but by no means a prerequisite
before core replication will be useful to some people. Hardware/machine
resources are only worth a tiny fraction of what the data is in some
environments, and in some of those downtime is really, really expensive.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-05-29 17:41:32 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-29 17:37:14 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-05-29 17:41:32 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-29 17:37:14 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |