Re: Open source databases '60 per cent cheaper'

[Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>]

On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 09:30 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 18:21 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > On a side note to this.. you said *into*.. my understanding is the
> > > policy of the community is *no* replication is in core.
> > 
> > I don't think that policy is written in stone. But for a replication 
> > solution to go into core, it should better cover a lot of use cases, 
> > i.e. for sure sync *and* async replication.
> 
> Perhaps we should re-read the archives. It has been a pretty solid
> policy for *years* and it comes up before every release and it always
> comes back to:
> 
> PostgreSQL doesn't ship a integrated replication solution, BECAUSE not
> any one replication solution can fit the need.
> 

I always got the impression that it had more to do with whether it
needed to be in core to work or not. 

If there is some great replication solution that a lot of people need
and it will only work with a change to core, that change might make it
in.

However, there may not be nifty syntax changes nor GUCs in core to
support a specific implementation of a replicator.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis