Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
Date: 2004-11-10 22:51:41
Message-ID: 1100127101.4442.703.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 21:35, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 09:28:12PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Externally, everybody thinks that there should be just one, just like
> > there is for other databases.
>
> I guess it's this thing that I want to understand. Why do people
> believe that?

I try not to ask "why" people believe what they do. It's usually makes
no sense.

> Because other databases, where "other" are "the ones
> I'd actually run important systems on" _don't_ have just one.

OK. I guess the big O have RAC, Data Guard, ASD, Advanced Replication,
Streams...

The perception is there though: O Replication

Perhaps we should refer to PostgreSQL methods like this...
HA Slony
Replication eRserver
Log Shipping PITR
Load Balancing pgpool

That would do it-ish

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2004-11-10 22:55:15 Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2004-11-10 22:50:33 Re: PostgreSQL in the press again