On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 10:06:51AM -0600, Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I disagree, I wouldn't want to contend with all the complexities
> and kludge of Oracle thank you very much. If there was a way to get
> PostgreSQL to do better than the current clustering methods, then why not, it would be a
> big win for us.
I'm not saying we _shouldn't_ go after such functionality (I have
someone reporting to me at work who is in fact doing so). I'm saying
that if you want that functionality today, you can buy it from one
place, and that's Oracle. Answers that rely on pretty-good, mostly
works, most of the time, if you use the right table handlers always
and make sure that nobody inserts dates like '2005-02-30', do not
qualify as "a place to buy it from", for the record. And if "pretty
close" is a good enough answer for you, you don't need this complex
technology at all. You can use async systems in most cases.
A
PS -- I think MySQL has plenty of good features. It's a fine
product, loads better than it was in the old days. But the misfeature
of different storage engines, none of which actually achieves all the
other features, is an administration mistake waiting to happen. It's
what really bothers me about their clustered offering. Others might
make a different trade-off. Me, I don't like to be in water over my
head when I'm awakened in the middle of the night.
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie
