On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:07:33 -0300 (ADT), Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 ... I think what I run into is that while most of us would agree that the "one size fits all" argument is useless from a technical perspective, it's not the technical people that are usually the ones involved here. >From a "marketing" perspective, it would be useful if PostgreSQL included at least a single master, single slave replication model that was easily enabled and set up. There is a subclass of the problem that is common to most situations, which is the ability to have a "live" backup. Perhaps the 'dbmirror' component in the 'contrib' directory is enough, and it simply needs to be highlighted. It does meet some subset of the needs out there. Sadly, a lot of problems are simply marketing perceptions :/ Chris -- | Christopher Petrilli | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
