Kevin Barnard wrote:
On Jun 22, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
I noticed that the user survey on the community page does not list
replication among the choices for development priority. For me,
replication is the most important thing that is critically missing
from postgresql. We need something as good as MySQL Replication. Both
statement-based and row-based replication. And support for
Master-Master and full cyclic replication setups. Postgresql is just
a toy database without this as far as I am concerned.
Regards,
Gerry
Google postgresql replication. There are multiple replication /
clustering options depending on you needs. It's not built in to the DB
nor should it be because everyone has different replication needs.
The idea of separating replication functionality from the core DB
product isn't new. AFAIK IBM has always done this on there big iron
based DB2. Granted their cheap replication software costs more then
you paid for that server that is running MySQL, and the expensive
replication probably costs more then a cabinet worth of MySQL servers.
:-)
--
Kevin Barnard
kevin.barnard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Have you ever tried any of the postgresql replication offerings? The
only one that is remotely viable is slony and it is so quirky you may as
well forget it. The rest are in some stage of decay/abandonment. There
is no real replication available for postgresql. Postgresql needs to
develop a real replication offering for postgresql. Builtin or a
separate module.
Regards,
Gerry
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
