Re: Integrating Replication into Core
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Integrating Replication into Core |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1164677491.7773.70.camel@dogma.v10.wvs обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Integrating Replication into Core (Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>) |
Ответы |
Re: Integrating Replication into Core
("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Integrating Replication into Core (Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 08:50 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > Hi, > > Jeff Davis wrote: > > I think you misunderstand my point. > > That may well be. Please keep in mind that I'm not a native English > speaker, thus please speak loud and clear ;-) > > > I was talking about replication > > implementations that already exist. They already have patches on the > > backend that are necessary for their solution to work. > > Do they? I'm only aware of the GORDA patch. The old Postgres-R patches > are out of date. Sequoia, PgPool and PgPool-II obviously do not need > patches. Slony-II, Postgres-R (8) (mine) as well as PGCluster-II are not > open sourced, yet. And I haven't heard much regarding hooks from any of > the proprietary vendors (except Joshua's recent statement that he's > happy without such hooks). Because we're talking about replication, I don't think we can limit the discussion to current open source solutions. I could be mistaken, but I am under the impression that commercial replication solutions do patch the backend. > > The idea is to design a single set of hooks that can be used to > > implement an entire class of replication. This only makes sense after > > existing solutions come to some agreement. I view that as a first step, > > assuming that it is necessary to alter the core in order to implement > > the class of replication in question. > > As there's not even *one* existing and open replication solution which > needs patching the backend, you are basing your statements on a false > premise. Thus, speaking of hooks as a "first step" is very confusing, at > least. > You're right, there is no agreement yet. When I say "first step," I mean that it's the first step toward getting any form of replication support in the _backend_, _not_ a first step toward a replication solution at all. It may be a long time before the backend has replication-specific support of any kind, but many replication projects have passed the first step toward replication a long time ago. I am not advocating replication support in the backend (since I don't even know what form that would take), nor am I saying that it will appear soon. I am just saying that replication-specific syntax is unlikely to appear before other replication-specific details. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: