On Jan 19, 2008 5:46 PM, Gordan Bobic <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
