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

Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: weigelt(at)metux(dot)de
Cc: postgresql advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Date: 2004-06-03 20:18:23
Message-ID: 40BF878F.3090609@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
> BTW: is there anything working yet in this direction ?
> I know several "userland" implementations (w/ triggers), and I also
> doing symetric (masterless) replication in my middleware framework, 
> but when will pgsql be able to do it by itself ? 

There is only one production and shipping replication that does not
require triggers that I know of and that is ours (Command Prompt).
It is also not a userland app but actually part of the PostgreSQL engine.

There is also ERServer which was first (?) but it tends to be a bit
of a beast to maintain.

There is Slony-I which is showing promise but is a Trigger based option.

Others include Peer Direct (Which I believe is query based) and 
PgCluster which is query based.

Each solution has pro's and cons. Slony-I for example appears to be 
better when doing mass updates or deletes than Replicator.

On the argument of significant features for 7.5:

Win32 Native
PITR
Nested Transactions
Background Writer....

J



> And when will probably load balancing come ?
> 
> hmm, which commerical RDBMS (beside oracle) provide this already ?
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>You can be dead certain that a Windows port will not be sufficient
>>reason to call it 8.0.  Perhaps 6.6.6 would the right starting version
>>number for that one ;-)
> 
> *rofl*
> 
> cu


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL

Attachment: jd.vcf
Description: text/x-vcard (640 bytes)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2004-06-03 20:21:06
Subject: Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-06-03 19:59:03
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Enrico WeigeltDate: 2004-06-03 20:21:04
Subject: Re: Perpetuating the myth...annoying
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-06-03 19:59:03
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

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