David Fetter 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.
+1
I would think that a read-only WAL slave is more valuable than a
real-time backup. (especially as the topic is about adding slaves not
increasing the effectiveness of backups)
I also think that starting with a read-only WAL slave will ease the
transition between delayed slave updating and real-time slave updating.
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
