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

Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date: 2005-01-25 21:46:48
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when steve(at)blighty(dot)com (Steve Atkins) would write:
> As a bit of obPostgresql, though... While the registry for .org is
> run on Postgresql, the actual DNS is run on Oracle. That choice was
> driven by the availability of multi-master replication.
> Like many of the cases where the problem looks like it needs
> multi-master replication, though, it doesn't really need it. A
> single master at any one time, but with the ability to dub any of
> the slaves a new master at any time would be adequate. If that were
> available for Postgresql I'd choose it over Oracle were I doing a
> big distributed database backed system again.

Well, this is something that actually _IS_ available for PostgreSQL in
the form of Slony-I.  Between "MOVE SET" (that does controlled
takeover) and "FAILOVER" (that recovers from the situation where a
'master' node craters), this has indeed become available.

Automating activation of the failover process isn't quite there yet,
though that's mostly a matter that the methodology would involve
considerable tuning of recovery scripts to system behaviour.
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || '';
Pay no attention to the PDP-11 behind the front panel.
-- PGS, in reference to OZ

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Steve PoeDate: 2005-01-25 23:52:56
Subject: Re: Ideal disk setup for Postgresql 7.4?
Previous:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2005-01-25 21:08:58
Subject: Re: PG versus FreeBSD, startup and connections problems

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