| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(at)thenilgiris(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL SQL <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why vacuum |
| Date: | 2005-10-26 15:19:40 |
| Message-ID: | 1130339980.2872.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 23:45, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> hi,
> i was in a minor flame war with a mysql guy - his major grouse was that
> 'I wouldnt commit mission critical data to a database that needs to be
> vacuumed once a week'. So why does pg need vacuum?
Oh man oh man. After reading the article, I realized he was saying that
he wouldn't trust PostgreSQL to replace Oracle. He apparently wouldn't
trust MySQL to replace oracle either.
But, the next time someone says that slony is a toy add on, and MySQL
has REAL replication, point them to THIS page on the same blog:
http://ebergen.net/wordpress/?p=70
In short, it basically shows that MySQL replication is incredibly
fragile, and not fit for production on any real system. The lack of
system wide transaction support, like postgresql has, makes the problem
he outlines that much worse.
The hoops people will jump through to use their favorite toys...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gary Stainburn | 2005-10-26 15:21:39 | select best price |
| Previous Message | Volkan YAZICI | 2005-10-26 15:16:13 | Combining two SELECTs by same filters |