X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A47D1E0F8 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:40:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73980-01 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:40:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.86.73]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87617D1D2B7 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:40:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from phlogiston.dydns.org ([65.49.125.184]) by fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (InterMail vM.5.01.05.12 201-253-122-126-112-20020820) with ESMTP id <20040422184026.FKZQ189540.fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@phlogiston.dydns.org> for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:40:26 -0400 Received: by phlogiston.dydns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A144F3D30; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:40:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:40:26 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Replication Message-ID: <20040422184026.GB3013@phlogiston.dyndns.org> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org References: <20040420115108.GC29715@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <40869207.8020509@Yahoo.com> <20040421172803.GA325@phlogiston.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.125.184] using ID at Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:40:26 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200404/861 X-Sequence-Number: 60103 On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:08:07PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: > The problem is not one of carelessness; No, I agree that in SAP's case it wasn't carelessness. As you say, that was a long time ago. What I am arguing is that it is careless to design things using that approach today. And people do. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca