Re: PostgreSQL advocacy

From: Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464a3(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL advocacy
Date: 2016-03-21 16:10:22
Message-ID: 56F01CEE.8050803@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 03/21/2016 10:57 AM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:

> So - at least as far as I can tell - it's usually only used where high-availability is really important, e.g. where zero-downtime is required.
> If you can live with a short downtime, a hot standby is much cheaper and probably not that much slower.

Even the above statement can be challenged , given the rising popularity
of nosql databases which are all based on
eventual consistency (aka async replication).

A PG with BDR and an application designed to read/write only
one node via connection mapping can match the high availability
requirement of RAC.

BTW disk is a single point of failure in RAC.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jernigan, Kevin 2016-03-21 16:46:51 Re: PostgreSQL advocacy
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2016-03-21 16:04:31 Re: plan not correct?