Re: Experiences with extensibility

On 08.01.2008, at 23:20, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> That isn't really an extensibility argument.

I was thinking about that too - for me, it still is just an
outstanding issue with PostgreSQL. It is incredibly scalable on one
machine but it totally sucks when you want more, but not much more.

Like, I have a situation where I need multi-master just for
availability. Two small servers are good enough for that. But
unfortunately with PostgreSQL the whole setup is a major pain in the ...

> At least not in my mind. Further I don't know of anyone that can
> "easily" do it. You either suffer the possibility of catastrophic
> data loss (dolphins) or you suffer guaranteed bank account drainage
> (Oracle), or you suffer the willingness of Monopolies (MSSQL).

FrontBase. It has an incredibly easy to configure replication and
multi master clustering support, is very reliable and can also handle
really big databases. The only problem is that the query planner is
not as good as PostgreSQL's so you might end up with much worse
performance. Depends a bit on the complexity of the database and how
"special" your queries are.

But if you need something easy to setup, multi-master with just two
machines, easy fail-over (done in the JDBC driver) without your
application even noticing it - try it. It's free, but not open source.
And it's a good product. I use it for some stuff and PostgreSQL for
other projects. Just depends on the requirements.

cug

--
http://www.event-s.net