On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just >> not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is >> all about. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00978.php
I still don't see where I suggested removing anything. What Heikki suggested, and I agreed with, was adding something: integrated base backup. > I don't think anyone who argued in favour of removal of existing system > was aware that we'd lose anything as a result. I think everybody > supports the easier-if-possible sentiment that Heikki was expressing; I > just don't want to let that be seen as agreement to remove, by default, > at a later time. I'm still totally unclear as to what you think anyone might, at some point in the future, propose to remove. I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment from Heikki: # IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't in such good shape, I'm afraid. I've said # this before, but I'm not happy with the "built from spare parts" nature of it. You # shouldn't have to configure an archive, file-based log shipping using rsync or # whatever, and pg_standby. All that is in addition to the direct connection between # master and slave. The slave really should be able to just connect to the master, and # download all the WAL it needs directly. That's a huge usability issue if left as is, # but requires very large architectural changes to fix. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
