From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200610261559.k9QFxv129610@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
In-Reply-To: <20061026155535.GU26892@nasby.net>
To: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:59:57 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why
> > > there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write something
> > > right now, but I can do it later tonight if no one beats me to it.
> > 
> > I thought that was implied in the early paragraph about why there are
> > many solutions.
> 
> I think we should explicitely spell it out, especially considering how
> many times people ask about it. How about...
> 
>  This multitude of choices is why PostgreSQL does not ship with a
>  replication solution by default; any bundled solution would only
>  satisfy a subset of replication needs.

The problem is that we do have some solutions in our code, like doing
data partitioning in the application, warm standby, or using a shared
disk for failover, so how do we spell that out?  I say there are
multiple solutions, but I don't see how I can say that all are external
and not included.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +