Horton

Re: 7.4?

Ed L. <pgsql@bluepolka.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Ed L." <pgsql@bluepolka.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, Joe Tomcat <tomcat@mobile.mp>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-02-26T07:53:42Z
Lists: pgsql-general 
On Tuesday February 25 2003 11:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Also, there are nontrivial licensing issues involved.  The PG-R
> design depends on an underlying "group communication" system, which
> is a nontrivial bit of software that none of the core team wants to
> rewrite. But none of the available GC systems are BSD-license open
> source.  We had had some hopes of getting Spread to offer BSD
> terms, but that seems to have fallen through.  So right now, PG-R
> is on the outside looking in, as far as inclusion in the core
> distribution goes :-(

Is anyone aware of particular reasons why the group is pushing on a 
syncronous solution?  I'm sure they have good reasons, but I would've 
assumed an asyncronous solution would be far more applicable for 
simple redundancy as opposed to syncronicity for high-performance 
clusters, not too mention being far simpler implementations.

Ed