Tom Lane wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought pg_standby would be mostly dead once SR hits the streets. Is it worth spending lots of time on?
I have to do the work I outlined regardless, to support installs on earlier versions (luckily there's few backport issues for this code). Also, some people are going to have working WAL shipping installs they just don't want to mess with as part of the upgrade--particularly given the relative newness of the SR code--that they should be able to convert over easily.
One reason we hadn't really brought up merging these pg_standby changes into core yet is for the reason you describe. Simon and I didn't think there'd be much community uptake on the idea given it's a less likely approach for future installs to use, didn't want to distract everyone with this topic. But if it mainly occupies time from people who have similar requirements that drive working on it anyway, like Selena it appears, it would be nice to see a "final" pg_standby get shipped as a result that has less obvious rough parts. Doubt much work will go into it beyond this release though.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
