On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:47:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> see some kind of joint proposal by multiple replication projects about
> what hooks to add. Anybody out there want to organize such a thing?
We were attempting to define such a set of hooks as part of the
Slony-II work, but that sort of
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:19:09AM -0700, Chahine Hamila wrote:
> Yes, I forgot to include hackers on that mail. Anyway,
> relax Jim, I'm not trying to invade anyone's turf
> here. There seems to be support for the idea of
> providing an interface plug for replication modules,
> which is fine with
PM
> >To: Jim Nasby
> >Subject: Re: [HACKERS] integration of pgcluster
> into postgresql
> >
> >> First, you need to review all the past discussion
> >> about the very
> >> intentional decision not to build any replication
> >> into the core
>
Adding -hackers back in...
-Original Message-
>From: Chahine Hamila [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Fri 8/25/2006 8:36 PM
>To: Jim Nasby
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] integration of pgcluster into postgresql
>
>> First, you need to review all the past discuss
The idea of hooks sounds quite good to me indeed. The
issue is not PR, it's indeed pgcluster benefiting from
the maintenance of postgresql and avoiding the hassle
of having to resync its code at each postgresql
change.
I will propose something along those lines once I get
a more stable pgcluster an
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8/27/06, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ... or the pgcluster group could check the hook list posted by the GORDA
>> project guys. In fact IIRC that patch was committed already, without
>> much discussion?
> I thought the GORDA patch
On 8/27/06, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... or the pgcluster group could check the hook list posted by the GORDA
project guys. In fact IIRC that patch was committed already, without
much discussion?
I thought the GORDA patch got turned down because there was no
communication betw
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > So I'd want to see some kind of joint proposal by multiple
> > replication projects about what hooks to add. Anybody out there want
> > to organize such a thing?
>
> Well, at least the pgcluster group could come up with a rough list of
> required ho
Tom Lane wrote:
> So I'd want to see some kind of joint proposal by multiple
> replication projects about what hooks to add. Anybody out there want
> to organize such a thing?
Well, at least the pgcluster group could come up with a rough list of
required hooks, and then the other groups can jud
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> My take on all this is that there's no one-size-fits-all replication
>> solution, and therefore the right approach is to have multiple active
>> subprojects.
> Anybody knowing a little about the world of replication needs will
> agre
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> My take on all this is that there's no one-size-fits-all replication
> solution, and therefore the right approach is to have multiple active
> subprojects.
Anybody knowing a little about the world of replication needs will
agree with you here. Unfortunately, AFAICS pgcluster c
On 8/27/06, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm beginning to wonder whether it would be better from a PR perspective to
rename pgfoundry to something like modules.postgresql.org. While "modules"
isn't necessarily technically right in postgresql vocabulary it's right in the
more general s
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That said, my company would feel more confortable with the idea that it's
>> part of the postgresql mainstream distro for many obvious reasons - or we
>> might drop postgresql altogether - which is why I'm proposing myself to do
>> the necessary work to inte
On 8/27/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My take on all this is that there's no one-size-fits-all replication
solution, and therefore the right approach is to have multiple active
subprojects.
Can't help but agree there. Maybe someday the subprojects will get
together and come up with a
Chahine Hamila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I posted a patch on the pgcluster mailing list
> but I already have two significant fixes related to
> pgcluster and one minor change related to the upgrade
> itself. I am to use PGCluster in a real time embedded
> fault-tolerant system, so I'm likely to
Caution! Blatant use of sarcasm ahead.
On 8/26/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Umm, I don't know where you're looking Jim, but the last update was
> February 10, 2006
http://pgcluster.projects.postgresql.org/; the latest date I see there
is Mar. 7, 2005, and the newest version is
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:18:04AM -0700, Chahine Hamila wrote:
> 8.1.2 actually, which I have updated to apply to
> 8.1.4. I posted a patch on the pgcluster mailing list
> but I already have two significant fixes related to
> pgcluster and one minor change related to the upgrade
> itself. I am to
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 PGClu
> 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
On 8/26/06, Markus Schiltknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Didn't Atsushi Mitani say he wanted to continue PgCluster-I? As they
serve quite different needs that would make sense.
Hmm... I was pretty sure he said that he couldn't devote time to both projects.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Archit
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
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
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
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:40:09AM -0700, Chahine Hamila wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I guess many - if not most - here have tried
> pgcluster. For those who didn't, postgresql is pretty
I think you need to guess again. :)
> much the equivalent of pgcluster configured without
> load balancer or replic
Hi there,
I guess many - if not most - here have tried
pgcluster. For those who didn't, postgresql is pretty
much the equivalent of pgcluster configured without
load balancer or replicator, in read-write standalone
mode. From a user point of view, that's three maximum
additional configuration file
24 matches
Mail list logo
