Re: 7.4?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: "Ed L." <pgsql@bluepolka.net>,
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, Joe Tomcat <tomcat@mobile.mp>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-02-26T06:52:30Z
Lists: pgsql-general
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes: > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 22:44, Ed L. wrote: >> And do I understand correctly the replication to be eventually >> included will be an embedded syncronous replication solution based on >> Postgres-R and the Spread GCS? > No, I don't think that's set in stone (although I can't speak for the > core team). While I think Postgres-R is promising, there might be room > for additional replication implementations that cater to different sets > of requirements. There absolutely *is* room for multiple replication implementations. AFAICS there's no one-size-fits-all approach. I did and still do like Postgres-R as a pretty useful approach, but it should not be mistaken for The One True Path. 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 :-( regards, tom lane