Kevin Barnard wrote:
>
> On Jun 22, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>> I noticed that the user survey on the community page does not list
>> replication among the choices for development priority. For me,
>> replication is the most important thing that is critically missing
>> from postgresql. We need something as good as MySQL Replication. Both
>> statement-based and row-based replication. And support for
>> Master-Master and full cyclic replication setups. Postgresql is just
>> a toy database without this as far as I am concerned.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gerry
>>
>
> Google postgresql replication. There are multiple replication /
> clustering options depending on you needs. It's not built in to the DB
> nor should it be because everyone has different replication needs.
>
> The idea of separating replication functionality from the core DB
> product isn't new. AFAIK IBM has always done this on there big iron
> based DB2. Granted their cheap replication software costs more then
> you paid for that server that is running MySQL, and the expensive
> replication probably costs more then a cabinet worth of MySQL servers.
> :-)
>
> --
> Kevin Barnard
> kevin.barnard@laser2mail.com
>
>
Have you ever tried any of the postgresql replication offerings? The
only one that is remotely viable is slony and it is so quirky you may as
well forget it. The rest are in some stage of decay/abandonment. There
is no real replication available for postgresql. Postgresql needs to
develop a real replication offering for postgresql. Builtin or a
separate module.
Regards,
Gerry