Re: Cluster/redundancy question

From: "Aly S(dot)P Dharshi" <aly(dot)dharshi(at)telus(dot)net>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cluster/redundancy question
Date: 2005-10-13 16:06:51
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0510131003450.15022@edtnas67.telus.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Andrew,

I disagree, I wouldn't want to contend with all the complexities
and kludge of Oracle thank you very much. If there was a way to get
PostgreSQL to do better than the current clustering methods, then why not, it would be a
big win for us.

PostgreSQL *is* an enterprise class DB after all, and we should be
improving upon it to do so and remain so.

Cheers,

Aly.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:38:22AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, if replication is one of the things you need, then
>> consider it, but if you're putting bad data into your database, what
>> good is replicating it gonna do ya?
>
>But if real, ORAC-style clustering is what you need, buy Oracle. The
>limitations on MySQL's implementation give me the willies. As Tom
>Waits said, "The large print giveth, and the small print taketh
>away."
>
>A
>
>

--
Aly S.P Dharshi
aly(dot)dharshi(at)telus(dot)net

"A good speech is like a good dress
that's short enough to be interesting
and long enough to cover the subject"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2005-10-13 16:11:02 Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2005-10-13 16:00:45 Re: Limitations of PostgreSQL