Josh Berkus wrote: > >> That's modest. I've talked to several oracle and db2 shops that want a >> standby for reporting that has relatively easy setup/maintenance >> (handling ddl is a big part of this) and the HS feature your working >> on will give them something as good as what they are getting now. So >> yeah, HS appeals to future users as well. > > I've talked to some of my clients, and while they *want* synch or > near-synch HS, even slow HS is useful to them *now*. > > One client is planning on deploying a rather complex FS cloning > infrastructure just to have a bunch of reporting, testing and read-only > search databases they need. They'd be thrilled with an HS feature which > produced DBs which were an hour out of date (or even 6 hours out of > date), but ran read-only queries.
I have a lot of clients who would be thrilled to have stuff that's been in our tree for half a year by now, and they'd be thrilled to have it *now*. How much extra should we have them wait for the needs of your clients? (Yes, I have clients now who would very much like HS as well, of course, but that's not the point) //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers