Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: integration of pgcluster into postgresql
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:57:43 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <4D27CB1096EF1C408F4BFAB0046EC7B667D93C@ausmailid.aus.pervasive.com>
Thread-Topic: [HACKERS] integration of pgcluster into postgresql
Thread-Index: AcbIsOCB+xwqUzKfSMCoDtqchxAGuAB+Q6Xl
References: <20060826013655.84902.qmail@web57114.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
From: "Jim Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: "Chahine Hamila" <chahine.hamila@yahoo.com>,
 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Adding -hackers back in...

-----Original Message-----
>From: Chahine Hamila [mailto:chahine.hamila@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Fri 8/25/2006 8:36 PM
>To: Jim Nasby
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] integration of pgcluster into postgresql
>=20
>> First, you need to review all the past discussion
>> about the very
>> intentional decision not to build any replication
>> into the core
>> database.
>
>I would gladly do so. Can you send me any pointer?

I don't really have any handy, but try searching the hackers archive for =
'replication'.

=20
>> 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.
>
>It's better than no replication at all... It's good
>enough for many uses.

As is Slony. And dbmirror. And pgpool. So where do we draw the line? =
Should we include all four?