> Second, pgcluster is (AFAIK) command-based replication, which has some
> very, very serious drawbacks. If PostgreSQL were to include a
> replication solution, I'd certainly hope it wouldn't be command-based.
Support of PGCluster-I, which we're discussing here, is being dropped
in favor of the shared-disk PGCluster-II which was demonstrated at the
anniversary conference. IIRC, PGCluster-I does use command-based
replication but is merged into the parser in such a way as to make it
work quite well--unlike the man-in-the-middle approach taken by
pgpool.
> Finally, pgcluster is very out-of-date. The last version uses 8.0.1 and
> was released on Mar. 7, 2005. If the author can't find the time to
> maintain it, I don't see why that burden should be put on the shoulders
> of this community.
Umm, I don't know where you're looking Jim, but the last update was
February 10, 2006 and it's for PostgreSQL 8.1.1. Frankly, it has had
a very good track record of development and bug fixes... so let's not
make assumptions on (very large PostgreSQL) projects we're unfamiliar
with.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | [email protected]
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
