Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 08:21 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:12:55AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
This part is a deal-killer. It's a giant up-hill slog to sell warm
standby to those in charge of making resources available because the
warm standby machine consumes SA time, bandwidth, power, rack space,
etc., but provides no tangible benefit, and this feature would have
exactly the same problem.
IMHO, without the ability to do read-only queries on slaves, it's not
worth doing this feature at all.
The only question I have is... what does this give us that PITR doesn't
give us?
Since people seem to be unclear on what we're proposing:
8.4 Synchronous Warm Standby: makes PostgreSQL more suitable for HA
systems by eliminating failover data loss and cutting failover time.
8.5 (probably) Synchronous & Asynchronous Hot Standby: adds read-only
queries on slaves to the above.
Again, if we can implement queries on slaves for 8.4, we're all for it.
However, after conversations in Core and with Simon we all think it's
going to be too big a task to complete in 4-5 months. We *don't* want
to end up delaying 8.4 for 5 months because we're debugging hot standby.
--Josh
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
