Re: why vacuum

On 10/27/2005 4:22 AM, Mario Splivalo wrote:

> I see no point in blatantly putting 'other' products such shape. Pgsql
> offers no replication at all, you need to use slony (wich is also a poor
> replacement for a wannabe replication), or some other commercial
> products. What about 2PC? What about linking the databases from
> different servers?

I agree that Scott's comment was a bit harsh. But would you please add a
few details that explain what makes Slony a "poor replacement" in your
opinion? And please don't repeat that stupid "not builtin". Any add-on
is as good as its reliability and features. Or would you at the same
time say that MySQL has only a poor replacement for wannabe transactions
and foreign keys, because their storage engines are in fact add-ons?

> Btw, I 'ported' the merge replication from MSSQL to postgres. It
> basicaly adds triggers to every table that is 'published' for
> replication. There is a separate table to store and calculate the change
> differences from several servers (so you could do update on any of the
> servers and change will be propagated to the others). I'm missing 2PC
> badly here, I wrote some stupid python 'thingie' wich should act as 2PC
> serializer, but that's slow as hell. And triggers slow down postgres
> quite a bit.

Would you consider publishing that code under the BSD license? It sounds
very much like one of the "other add-on replication systems" our users
keep asking for. If you can't publish the code, do you have any design
papers or a technical concept that could be used as a base for a new
PostgreSQL community project?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #