Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
No question. We have to think of the average user when considering the impact of these features, meaning not what _we_ are capable of doing, but what the average user is capable of easily setting up. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
