Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Subject | Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Date | |
Msg-id | 26529.1212070375@sss.pgh.pa.us Whole thread Raw |
Responses |
Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
List | pgsql-hackers |
The Postgres core team met at PGCon to discuss a few issues, the largest of which is the need for simple, built-in replication for PostgreSQL. Historically the project policy has been to avoid putting replication into core PostgreSQL, so as to leave room for development of competing solutions, recognizing that there is no "one size fits all" replication solution. However, it is becoming clear that this policy is hindering acceptance of PostgreSQL to too great an extent, compared to the benefit it offers to the add-on replication projects. Users who might consider PostgreSQL are choosing other database systems because our existing replication options are too complex to install and use for simple cases. In practice, simple asynchronous single-master-multiple-slave replication covers a respectable fraction of use cases, so we have concluded that we should allow such a feature to be included in the core project. We emphasize that this is not meant to prevent continued development of add-on replication projects that cover more complex use cases. We believe that the most appropriate base technology for this is probably real-time WAL log shipping, as was demoed by NTT OSS at PGCon. We hope that such a feature can be completed for 8.4. Ideally this would be coupled with the ability to execute read-only queries on the slave servers, but we see technical difficulties that might prevent that from being completed before 8.5 or even further out. (The big problem is that long-running slave-side queries might still need tuples that are vacuumable on the master, and so replication of vacuuming actions would cause the slave's queries to deliver wrong answers.) Again, this will not replace Slony, pgPool, Continuent, Londiste, or other systems for many users, as it will be not be highly scalable nor support long-distance replication nor replicating less than an entire installation. But it is time to include a simple, reliable basic replication feature in the core system. regards, tom lane
pgsql-hackers by date: