On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:44:07AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> >Second, pgcluster is (AFAIK) command-based replication, which has some
> >very, very serious drawbacks. If PostgreSQL were to include a
> >replication solution, I'd certainly hope it wouldn't be command-based.
> Support of PGCluster-I, which we're discussing here, is being dropped
> in favor of the shared-disk PGCluster-II which was demonstrated at the
> anniversary conference.  IIRC, PGCluster-I does use command-based
> replication but is merged into the parser in such a way as to make it
> work quite well--unlike the man-in-the-middle approach taken by
> pgpool.
Ahh, I didn't realize that. Good to know.

> >Finally, pgcluster is very out-of-date. The last version uses 8.0.1 and
> >was released on Mar. 7, 2005. If the author can't find the time to
> >maintain it, I don't see why that burden should be put on the shoulders
> >of this community.
> Umm, I don't know where you're looking Jim, but the last update was
> February 10, 2006 and it's for PostgreSQL 8.1.1.  Frankly, it has had
> a very good track record of development and bug fixes... so let's not
> make assumptions on (very large PostgreSQL) projects we're unfamiliar
> with.

http://pgcluster.projects.postgresql.org/; the latest date I see there
is Mar. 7, 2005, and the newest version is 8.0.1.
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to