On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 11:26:24AM +0200, Pailloncy Jean-G?rard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just see that Mysql will propose at the end of the month a full
> synchronous replication system with auto-recovery.
Well, sort of. It seems to be yet another 80/20 Solution From MySQL
(tm).
It looks like it's based on a new table type. It stores everything
in memory, and then writes out asynchronously. This strikes me as
pretty dangerous from the point of view of reliability: what if the
box dies before the write is complete? (And don't tell me about
super-redundant high-availability hardware. I _have_ all that. All
hardware sucks; HA stuff just sucks less often at a higher price.)
Also, it doesn't support the other table types. I don't want to
contemplate the horrible mess you'd have to clean up if you had a
transaction crossing three table types and get a hardware failure.
I'm afraid I agree with the recently-posted Oracle Veep interview:
this does not represent any serious challenge to the core ORAC
market.
> I use PostgreSQL and I would appreciate to have the same features in
> PostgreSQL.
Sure, so would I. Talk to Jan Wieck about what he plans to do
about it, and maybe consider supporting that development work too ;-)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
