Josh Berkus wrote:
Having built-in replication in PostgreSQL was supposed to give the *majority* of users a *simple* option for 2-server failover, not cater only to the high end.
If that's your criteria, 9.0 has already failed that goal. Just the fact that you have to make your own base backup and manage that whole area alone excludes "simple" as a goal anyone can claim 9.0 meets with a straight face, long before you get to the mechanics of how HS handles query cancellation. The new replication oriented features are functional, but neither are close to simple yet. Based on the complication level of replication in other database products, I wouldn't put money on that even being possible. You can make a simpler path the default one, but the minute you want to support more than one use case the complexity involved in setting up replication explodes.
Anyway, I have no idea where the idea that recommending time synchronization is a somehow a "high end" requirement, given that every OS I'm aware of makes that trivial nowadays. Slave servers that drift too far away from the master time are going to cause all sorts of problems for user apps too. Any app that gauges how long ago something happened by comparing a database timestamp with now() is going to give misleading results for example, and I know I see those all the time.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
