On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:26:21 -0700 "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:13:14 -0700 > > > paul rivers <rivers.paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > For a database of InnoDB tables, people tend to replicate the > > > > database, and then backup the slave (unless the db is > > > > trivially > > > > > > That recalled me the *unsupported* feeling I have that it is > > > easier to setup a HA replication solution on MySQL. > > > > Well, if you have a crappy system that cannot sustain concurrent > > load or even be backed up concurrently with regular operation, > > one solution is to write a kick-ass replication system. > > > > The other solution is to enhance the ability of the system to > > deal with concurrent operation. > > > > We keep hearing how great all those Web 2.0 sites are; Slashdot, > > Flickr, etc; and they all run on farms and farms of MySQL > > servers, "because MySQL replication is so good". I wonder if > > replication is an actual _need_ or it's there just because the > > other aspects of the system are so crappy. > Reminds me of the saying that for each problem, there is a simple, > elegant solution that is completely wrong. It amazes me that slony, > being basically a "bolt on" replication solution has given me much > fewer problems than MySQL replication which is known for silent > failures. Slony is by no means perfect, but it is quite impressive > as both a replication tool and an upgrade tool. I heard about Slony as well (dho!)... I'm not complaining about anything... I do like PostgreSQL from a programmer point of view and it makes my life easier. I never pushed it to the limit I need replication, pooling etc... Just as there is a myth out there that mysql outperform pgsql... I'm here to testify there is another myth (?) that says that pg doesn't have an easy (erm kick-ass) replication system. I've no deep knowledge of Slashdot, Flickr or Google to say they don't "high level" of data integrity/coherence as the one pg offers and it is famous for... so I doubt they would hit the limitations of systems like Slony or pgpool etc... etc... and maybe they have no interest in the more advanced features and data integrity pg has to offer... > An awful lot of the sites running on MySQL are running on it > primarily because it's what they started with, and now it's hard to > switch because their code is chock full of mysqlisms like "select > field1, field2 from table group by field1" and so on that no other > database is going to swallow without throwing an error. For what is worth I mostly share your opinion... just Google makes me wonder... -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
