David Fetter wrote: > Either one of these would be great, but something that involves > machines that stay useless most of the time is just not going to work.
Lots of people do use warm standby already anyway, just not based on mechanisms built into PostgreSQL. So defining away this need is completely unrealistic based on my experience. Even if there were a read-only slave, lots of applications couldn't make use of it. Anyway, a common approach to making better use of the hardware is to put some other service on the otherwise-standby machine, which in turn uses your master database server machine as its failover target. Unless you run *only* a database, there would usually be some candidate that you could set up that way. Another common approach is to realize that for some the costs of a downtime risk are higher than buying some extra hardware. I think the consensus in the core team was that having synchronous log shipping in 8.4 would already be a worthwhile feature by itself. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
