On Jan 19, 2008 5:46 PM, Gordan Bobic <gordan@bobich.net> wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>
> >>>> That's just it - I don't think any user-land libraries would
> >>>> actually be required. One of supposed big advantages of MySQL is
> >>>> it's straightforward replication support. It's quite painful to
> >>>> see PostgreSQL suffer purely for the sake of lack of marketting in
> >>>> this department. :-(
> >>> The "straigtforward" replication support in MySQL is seriously
> >>> broken.
> >> I am not arguing that it isn't! :-) I am merely trying to implement
> >> something at least as good (or rather, no more broken) for
> >> PostgreSQL with a minimum of effort.
> >
> > In that case, use one of the existing solutions. They're all way
> > easier than re-inventing the wheel.
>
> Existing solutions can't handle multiple masters. MySQL can do it at
> least in a ring arrangement.
Then go use MySQL.
PostgreSQL multi-master replication systems I know of:
pgcluster
http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.752
bucardo
http://bucardo.org/
One of the features of PostgreSQL is that it's easily enough to extend
that you don't have to rely on just what's built in and supported by
core.
The multi-master replication in MySQL is NOT recommended for things
like bank style transactional systems. It was built for telecom
systems, where everything can be restored form a backup if the power
goes out.