On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:32:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> No, I don't think so. �HS without SR means you still have to fool > >> with setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the > >> existence of pg_standby is a PITA. �And you have to make a > >> tradeoff of how often to flush WAL files to the standby. �To be a > >> real candidate for "it just works" replication, we've *got* to > >> have SR. > > > Yes, but HS without SR certainly solves all the "need to offload > > my reporting" kind of situations, which is still a very big thing. > > Yes, it'll be much nicer with SR, but it will be *very* useful > > without it as well. > > [ shrug... ] To me, HS+SR is actual replication, which would > justify tagging this release 9.0. With only one of them, it's 8.5. > I understand that there are power users who would find HS alone to > be tremendously useful, but in terms of what the average user sees, > there's a quantum difference.
By, "quantum," do you mean, "the smallest possible?" Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers