Re: Replication

> Indeed. But just to stress the point, I wasn't stating that the included
> replication in MySQL was any good (though it's not terrible as we're
> using it heavily in an extremely high-volume situation with few
> problems), I was just bringing up the idea of getting a decent
> replication solution included in PostgreSQL for relatively little effort.

No, but IIRC, you didn't state that is was a substandard solution, and, also
IIRC, it really sounded as though you believed it was a good one.

>> So, feel free to mention MySQL, but know that mostly when it's mentioned
>> here, it's mentioned as an example of how things shouldn't be done. In
>> terms of coding, marketing, testing, or licensing.
>>
>
> I think in future I'll just stick to not mentioning it. :)

Probably not necessary; just make it clear whether you're saying "MySQL
claims... and it would be good for Postgres to have its own solution..." or
"MySQL has an actual working full-blown good solution for... that Postgres
would do well to emulate".

--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 665-7007 voice