Re: Replication

Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 12:51, Russ Brown wrote:
>
>>Scott Ribe wrote:
>>
>>>>How about a third choice: you can also use a proven, reliable and tested
>>>> replication solution that is included in the core system because the
>>>>core system basiclly provides it anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, but that one is spelled "Sybase", not "MySQL" ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It's amazing how misunderstood my post was.
>>
>>My third choice was a hypothetical future version of PostgreSQL,
>>modified from its current form very slightly to include a form of
>>replication 'out of the box': a couple of scripts to enable WAL log
>>transfer and also a solution to the problem of WAL log delay mentioned
>>by other posters.
>>
>>I only mentioned MySQL because their 'out of the box' solution involves
>>transferring the binlogs, which is similar to the method of transferring
>>the PostgreSQL WAL logs, and it just made me think. That's all. I wasn't
>>comparing, I wasn't suggesting MySQL is better than PostgreSQL. I wasn't
>>suggesting that they have the 'ultimate' solution. I wasn't even
>>suggesting that they have a good solution. It just made me think. That's
>>all.
>>
>>Well, I've learned my lesson. Next time I post I'll be sure not to
>>mention MySQL in any way, shape or form.
>
>
> Actually, I would just suggest to not hold it up as an example of how
> things should be done.  That would work for me.
>

I didn't!!!!!!

> There was a time, 5 to 10 years ago, when MySQL AB spent a LOT of energy
> demonizing PostgreSQL to make themselves look better.  There were pages
> of misinformation in their documentation about how PostgreSQL was
> basically crap, and MySQL did everything right, and a lot of people
> spent a lot of time debunking that.
>

I remember that time, and I remember being very annoyed about it. I am
still frustrated now by people who will believe the FUD that was spread
at the time and won't even consider PostgreSQL as a result. That is
basically why the company I work for uses MySQL, and simply will not
consider changing, no matter how hard I try to make it happen.

> MySQL AB now plays better with others, and hasn't engaged in the kind of
> character assassination they once did, but there's STILL a sore spot for
> most PostgreSQL users and developers there, because they used to have to
> spend a lot of energy and time explaining that what was on the MySQL
> site was lies and misinformation.  A LOT of time.  And it did hurt
> PostgreSQL, in terms of keeping people away from it.
>

Indeed. As I say above, that's why my company is staying away from it,
despite my best efforts.

> So, there's an almost automatic response triggered by someone mentioning
> how MySQL does things, especially if they're perceived to be holding
> MySQL up as an example to the PostgreSQL community on how things should
> be done.
>

I've noticed that. I've been reading (and occasionally posting to) this
list for a few years now, and it's the one and only thing about it that
bugs me. Other lists bug me in a lot of ways due to attitudes of some of
the major contributors, but I've always enjoyed this list greatly
primarily *because* of the major contributors (yourself included). It's
educational, friendly and very helpful. I learn a lot from this list and
enjoy the discussion.

This one thing bugs me because I'm not generally an emotionally reactive
person: I prefer to consider things fairly before responding, which is
why I frequently don't respond at all to things if I don't think it
would help matters. I feel that it is an extremely unwise policy to
automatically assume that what your competitors are doing is worse than
what you are doing, and that there's nothing you can learn from them.
That's how you get left behind. That's not to say that there *is* a
great deal that PostgreSQL can learn from MySQL, but one should not
assume that there is nothing.

 From my readings on this list the majority of examples of people using
MySQL as an example of how PostgreSQL should be doing things have been
misguided/wrong/trolling etc. However, from time to time a legitimate
example is raised, and in those situations the responses given have
sometimes been disappointing.

> In my original post, my main point wasn't just against MySQL, it was
> against the philosophy that just because replication is  included and
> part of the core of a database, it doesn't mean that it's reliable or
> well tested.  And MySQL is a fine example of that.  Their replication
> really does have a lot of issues.
>

Indeed. But just to stress the point, I wasn't stating that the included
replication in MySQL was any good (though it's not terrible as we're
using it heavily in an extremely high-volume situation with few
problems), I was just bringing up the idea of getting a decent
replication solution included in PostgreSQL for relatively little effort.

> So, feel free to mention MySQL, but know that mostly when it's mentioned
> here, it's mentioned as an example of how things shouldn't be done.  In
> terms of coding, marketing, testing, or licensing.
>

I think in future I'll just stick to not mentioning it. :)

Regards,

--

Russ