On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 09:53, Neil Conway wrote: > That's exactly what I was going to say -- I'd prefer that any > interested parties concentrate on producing a *really good* > replication implementation, which might eventually be integrated into > PostgreSQL itself. > > Producing a "generic API" for something that really doesn't need > genericity sounds like a waste of time, IMHO. > > Cheers, > > Neil
Some how I get the impression that I've been completely misunderstood.
Somehow, people seem to of only read the subject and skipped the body
explaining the concept.
In what way would providing a generic interface to *monitor* be a "waste
of time"? In what way would that prevent someone from "producing a
*readlly good* replication implementation"? I utterly fail to see the
connection.
Regards,
Greg Copeland
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
