Not really. The available options for postgresql are simply not as
good as what the big databases offer. For some problems the
non-transaction master/slave Slony-I is good enough. But to claim it
is good enough for all, is like when MySQL claimed nobody really needs
transactions.
Nobody claimed Slony-I is good for all. That is why there are other
products out there. Mammoth Replicator (blatant plug and which is a
transaction log based replication) for example.
I am a big postgresql fan, and I have several production clusters
using DRBD to replicate postgresql databases in an active/failover
configuration. But some day I am going to need a cluster that can do
active/active, and that day I will be forced to adopt a different
database.
Active, active as in multi-master?
I will also point out that none of the replication solutions have the
same solid reputation as postgresql. As long the postgresql team will
not endorse a replication solution, you can not expect people to put
the same trust in these solutions as we put into postgresql itself.
That's true enough.
Oracle do endorse their own replication solution after all.
Well they wrote it, they have to.
Joshua D. Drake
Baldur
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
