Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
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 01:19:55
Message-ID: 200411092019.55313.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Tuesday 09 November 2004 16:35, 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?  Because other databases, where "other" are "the ones
> I'd actually run important systems on" _don't_ have just one.
>

1) Many of the databases that you _wouldn't_ run important systems on have 
only one type of replication and they will tell you that is all you need. 

2) explaining what your replication solution(s) can do invariably leads to 
what it can't do, and its safer even for vendors with multiple solutions to 
just drill home the message that they have replication so they can make the 
sale. 

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Christopher BrowneDate: 2004-11-10 05:02:35
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-11-10 01:01:40
Subject: Re: Final Copy Edit: Press Release, Page

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group