Jeff Trout skrev:
>
>>>> "Built In" Failover/Clustering
>>>> This won't happen. The community stance, which is a good one is
>>>> that no single replication solutions fits everyone's needs and
>>>> therefore we rely out the outside
>>>> sources. Slony-I, Mammoth Replicator and pgpool being the most
>>>> popular.
>>> Too bad - I think that will keep a lot of potential users from
>>> evaluating Pg as a serious alternative. Good or bad, decide for
>>> yourself :)
>>
>
> Isn't the [expensive db name here]'s replication/failover just an
> expensive addon?
> As in if you don't pay for it you don't get it.
>
> So we're basically in the same boat as them.. just an add on. we just
> offer more variety.
Not really. The available options for postgresql are simply not as good
as what the big databases offer. For some problems the non-transaction
master/slave Slony-I is good enough. But to claim it is good enough for
all, is like when MySQL claimed nobody really needs transactions.
I am a big postgresql fan, and I have several production clusters using
DRBD to replicate postgresql databases in an active/failover
configuration. But some day I am going to need a cluster that can do
active/active, and that day I will be forced to adopt a different database.
I will also point out that none of the replication solutions have the
same solid reputation as postgresql. As long the postgresql team will
not endorse a replication solution, you can not expect people to put the
same trust in these solutions as we put into postgresql itself.
Oracle do endorse their own replication solution after all.
Baldur