> 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. No, but IIRC, you didn't state that is was a substandard solution, and, also IIRC, it really sounded as though you believed it was a good one. >> 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. :) Probably not necessary; just make it clear whether you're saying "MySQL claims... and it would be good for Postgres to have its own solution..." or "MySQL has an actual working full-blown good solution for... that Postgres would do well to emulate". -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 665-7007 voice ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
