| From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>,"Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)refractions(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Pgsql-Advocacy(at)Postgresql(dot)Org" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to scale up? |
| Date: | 2006-07-26 16:25:52 |
| Message-ID: | web-9819579@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www |
Thomas,
> Finally assume that the community board, when similar proposals
> arrive, will encourage the proposing parties to merge on the thesis
> that cooperation is far more productive than a beauty contest (well
> most of the time anyway).
Ah, so you're planning on merging with PL/J?
The different solutions are different because of technical decisions
which they made differently, usually for very good reasons. Slony-I
is trigger-based, Mammoth is log-based, and no matter which you prefer
they're not going to merge code.
BTW, our replication/clustering solutions include:
Slony-I
pgPool
Mammoth*
Postgres-R
pgCluster
Sequoia/p|cluster*
dbMirror/eRserv/other older solutions
ExtenDB*
Bizgres MPP*
Windows/Red Hat/Solaris clustered FS*
(*=proprietary/external)
I think any community packaged distribution should encourage this
diversity, not try to crush it.
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco 415-752-2500
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-07-26 16:39:54 | Re: Time to scale up? |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-07-26 16:17:30 | Re: Time to scale up? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-07-26 16:39:54 | Re: Time to scale up? |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-07-26 16:17:30 | Re: Time to scale up? |