David Fetter wrote:
> This part is a deal-killer. It's a giant up-hill slog to sell warm
> standby to those in charge of making resources available because the
> warm standby machine consumes SA time, bandwidth, power, rack space,
> etc., but provides no tangible benefit, and this feature would have
> exactly the same problem.
>
> IMHO, without the ability to do read-only queries on slaves, it's not
> worth doing this feature at all.
+1
I would think that a read-only WAL slave is more valuable than a
real-time backup. (especially as the topic is about adding slaves not
increasing the effectiveness of backups)
I also think that starting with a read-only WAL slave will ease the
transition between delayed slave updating and real-time slave updating.
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz
Get Sheeky @
http://Sheeky.Biz--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
pgsql-hackers@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
