On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Greg Sabino Mullane" <g...@turnstep.com> writes: >>> However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot >>> less compelling than HS with SR. So it's going to be pretty >>> unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there. > >> I don't think that's the case. Having HS alone would be a huge win, >> and the sooner we can get it out there the better. Those that are >> waiting for SR might have to wait one more version, but my intuition >> tells me that's a small minority compared to those waiting for HS. > > No, I don't think so. HS without SR means you still have to fool with > setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the existence of > pg_standby is a PITA. And you have to make a tradeoff of how often to > flush WAL files to the standby. To be a real candidate for "it just > works" replication, we've *got* to have SR.
Yes, but HS without SR certainly solves all the "need to offload my reporting" kind of situations, which is still a very big thing. Yes, it'll be much nicer with SR, but it will be *very* useful without it as well. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
