On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Matt Browne wrote:
On 06 July 2004 16:41, Christopher Browne wrote:I've taken a look at the replication solutions already available, including the sterling effort made on Slony-I, but we're really looking for integrated, base-level support rather than an add-in.
The problem is that "replication" doesn't tend to mean one thing, but people rather have different ideas of what it means.
I don't necessarily agree with that. It's true that one size hardly ever fits all, especially when it comes to implementation, but I think people have a certain replication feature set in mind when they come across a DBMS that purports to be enterprise-class...
... Just like what's been listed in the 'Urgent' section of the TODO list since (I think) 7.2, in fact. (Except perhaps the more complex features like multi-master replication.)
I didn't post my original message to the pgsql-hackers list because I wanted to respect the ominous warning about trying other lists first.
Not to discount your comments, Christopher, but is there anyone on this list who could give me an official and authoritative line on the inclusion of in-built replication functionality?
Christopher is correct ... if there was such a thing as an 'end all, be all' replication solution, there wouldn't be a half a dozen different ones out there ...
It would be unwise for *anyone* to state "never" as far as inclusion of built-in replication, but since the general consensus is that there is no such thing as the 'all-encompassing solution' for this, the chances of one ever coming about that would be of a scope that would be acceptable to be built-in is next to zero ...
---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
