X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D629FBDF5 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:22:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53195-08 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:22:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862B69FBDF4 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:22:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E9C4056431; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:22:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:22:49 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:22:49 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Chahine Hamila Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: integration of pgcluster into postgresql Message-ID: <20060826012249.GF73562@pervasive.com> References: <20060825124009.3593.qmail@web57112.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060825124009.3593.qmail@web57112.mail.re3.yahoo.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060826:chahine.hamila@yahoo.com::t/TrChE2LhFM4aD9:0000000000000 0000000000000000000000001YD5 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060826:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org::WPac1WKoOgX1/nzq:000000000 000000000000000000000000Blwu X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/1706 X-Sequence-Number: 89199 On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:40:09AM -0700, Chahine Hamila wrote: > Hi there, > > I guess many - if not most - here have tried > pgcluster. For those who didn't, postgresql is pretty I think you need to guess again. :) > much the equivalent of pgcluster configured without > load balancer or replicator, in read-write standalone > mode. From a user point of view, that's three maximum > additional configuration files, which can be basically > set to those default values and distributed as is in > standard (making installs/upgrades transparent to > non-cluster environments). From a developer point of > view, the pgcluster code is quite easy to take a hold > on. > > pgcluster still has quite a few pending issues, but > it's good enough for many users. Integrating it as > part of a standard postgresql distribution would > likely not disrupt standard postgresql functionning, > while giving it the replication features it lacks as > is. It's also likely to accelerate its maturing by a > more widespread adoption and as a result overcome most > of its issues. > > If the idea of its integration in the main postgresql > code is of any interest to the postgresql team, I'm > willing to invest some effort on it. First, you need to review all the past discussion about the very intentional decision not to build any replication into the core database. Second, pgcluster is (AFAIK) command-based replication, which has some very, very serious drawbacks. If PostgreSQL were to include a replication solution, I'd certainly hope it wouldn't be command-based. Finally, pgcluster is very out-of-date. The last version uses 8.0.1 and was released on Mar. 7, 2005. If the author can't find the time to maintain it, I don't see why that burden should be put on the shoulders of this community. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461