Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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.
[ shrug... ] To me, HS+SR is actual replication, which would justify
tagging this release 9.0. With only one of them, it's 8.5. I
understand that there are power users who would find HS alone to be
tremendously useful, but in terms of what the average user sees, there's
a quantum difference.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
