Re: No flamefest please, MySQL vs. PostgreSQL AGAIN
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: No flamefest please, MySQL vs. PostgreSQL AGAIN |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1052763681.24076.726.camel@camel обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: No flamefest please, MySQL vs. PostgreSQL AGAIN (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: No flamefest please, MySQL vs. PostgreSQL AGAIN
|
Список | pgsql-admin |
On Mon, 2003-05-12 at 10:32, Tom Lane wrote: > timeless postgres <pvspam-postgres@hacklab.net> writes: > > 1. Replication -- Supposedly Postgres-R was to be merged into 7.2? > > Did this happen? Is the pgsql.com offering still the only game > > in town? (pgsql.com was down at the time I wrote this) > > Postgres-R hasn't been merged, and I see no prospect that it will appear > in 7.4 either. Possibly 7.5. In the meantime, third-party solutions > are still your only option, and PostgreSQL Inc's one is probably the > best. I wouldn't say they are your only options. there is the rserv code in contrib which I've seen people post they have gotten working. There is also the usogres stuff that I have heard of a few people using. While none of these are considered "ready for prime time" by the core group, I don't think they should be ignored. If more people tried using them and submitted some patches, we might get a solid replication solution that much sooner. I also feel I should point out that in a lot of the cases I have seen mysql replication used because they couldn't get a single mysql instance to scale up enough. Given that postgresql scales so well, it cuts down on the need to have a replication solution, which is probably part of the reason why we have gone so long without one. Robert Treat
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: