From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
Cc: alfranio correia junior <alfranio@lsd.di.uminho.pt>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: standard interfaces for replication providers
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:46:52 -0400
Message-ID: <29263.1154706412@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <36e682920608040645o56ea4bb0l21451c2a73f0e1a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44D30B31.2070403@lsd.di.uminho.pt>
<36e682920608040645o56ea4bb0l21451c2a73f0e1a3@mail.gmail.com>
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
> On 8/4/06, alfranio correia junior <alfranio@lsd.di.uminho.pt> wrote:
>> patches to the PostgreSQL server and a plugin provide the necessary
>> functionality with minimal intrusion.
> I haven't looked at the patch for this in awhile, but does anyone have
> anything against it?
We haven't been able to build production-grade multi-master replication
without the barrier of a "standard" database-agnostic API, so I kinda
doubt that it will work all that much better with one. See Slony-II.
In short the burden of proof is to show why this should go in, not why not.
(Suitable proof would be a usable replication system built atop it...)
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jonah.harris@gmail.com, alfranio@lsd.di.uminho.pt
Subject: Re: standard interfaces for replication providers
In-Reply-To: <29263.1154706412@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox