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

Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
Date: 2004-11-10 22:51:41
Message-ID: 1100127101.4442.703.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 21:35, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 09:28:12PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Externally, everybody thinks that there should be just one, just like
> > there is for other databases. 
> I guess it's this thing that I want to understand.  Why do people
> believe that?  

I try not to ask "why" people believe what they do. It's usually makes
no sense.

> Because other databases, where "other" are "the ones
> I'd actually run important systems on" _don't_ have just one. 

OK. I guess the big O have RAC, Data Guard, ASD, Advanced Replication,

The perception is there though: O Replication 

Perhaps we should refer to PostgreSQL methods like this...
HA		Slony		
Replication	eRserver
Log Shipping	PITR
Load Balancing	pgpool

That would do it-ish

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jan WieckDate: 2004-11-10 22:55:15
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
Previous:From: Jan WieckDate: 2004-11-10 22:50:33
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group