Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Agreed, but you are a "me too", not a huge percentage of our userbase.
How do you know? Have you polled our complete userbase?
Basically, after 6-7 months of development, I want more than a vacuum patch and a new cache replacement policy. I want something big, in fact, several big things.
Most likely won't happen, since what is considered big by you isn't necessarily what is considered big by someone else ... as Hannu, and I believe, Jan, have so far pointed out to you ...
I can't poll for everything. I make my own educated guesses.
Based on what though?
All the clients that I deal with on a daily basis generally care about is performance ... that is generally what they upgrade for ... so, my 'educated guess' based on real world users is that Win32, PITR and nested transactions are not important ... tablespaces, I have one client that has asked about something *similar* to it, but tablespaces, for him, doesn't come close to what they would like to see ...
So, my 'educated guess' is different then yours is ... does that make yours wrong? Nope ... just means we have different sample sets to work with ...
Interesting. We have made COMPLETELY different experiences.
There is one question people ask me daily: "When can we have sychronous replication and PITR?".
Performance is not a problem here. People are more interested in stability and "enterprise" features such as those I have mentioned above.
I am still wondering about two things:
Somebody has posted a 2PC patch - I haven't seen too many comments
Somebody has posted sync multimaster replication (PgCluster) - nobody has commented on that. Maybe I am the only one who has ever tried it ...
Do you really need someone "commenting" on query based replication? I get goosebumps from just thinking someone would voluntarily push all sequence- or timestamp-generation and other not strictly deterministic functionality into the application to be able to use such a "solution". This is exactly how people work around all the MySQL idiosyncrasies.
Most likely this is not very encourageing for the developers involved ...
Most hopefully this is very discouraging! Connection pools are a nice thing and I have used pgpool recently with great success, for pooling connections. But attempting to deliver multimaster replication as a byproduct of a connection pool isn't going to become an enterprise feature. And the more half-baked, half-functional and half-reliable replication attempts there are, the harder it will be to finally get a real solution being recognized.
Jan
-- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
