On 1/12/06, Jeff Trout <threshar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >>> "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 entire company of [expensive DB name here] is at the end of the phone[0]. Taking Oracle as an example. I am not aware of Oracle etc having a seperate company that sells replication on top of their database although I could be wrong. The other thing is that Oracle is supported by various platforms etc and that support will include their replication or clustering offering. Sun has offered to support PostgreSQL just recently but have they offered to support any of the replication offerings? I would hardly say we are in the same boat just because we have bolt on replication. -- Harry http://www.hjackson.org http://www.uklug.co.uk [0] I am not suggesting that this improves support although it does improve the appearance of support.
