On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
>>> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>> In any case, it's certainly not something required for an initial
>>> implementation..
>
>> No disagreement there; but sometimes it pays to know where you might
>> want to go, so you don't do something to make further development in
>> that direction unnecessarily difficult.
>
> I think that setting out to reimplement rsync, or to go down a design
> path where we're likely to do a lot of that eventually, is the height
> of folly. We should be standing on the shoulders of other projects,
> not rolling our own because of misguided ideas about people not having
> those projects installed.
>
> IOW, what I'd like to see is protocol extensions that allow an external
> copy of rsync to be invoked; not build in rsync, or tar, or anything
> else that we could get off-the-shelf.
We used to use "cp" to create databases. Should we go back to that system?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
