On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 05:16:46PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> This is essentially correct. Note that I can use pgpool with postgresql
> and get about the same behaviour as mysql's replication, with the same
> basic draw backs, that it's best to copy the database between shutdown
> machines, and things that are dynamically evaluated can cause issues.
> With pgpool I get synchronous replication with automatic failover, and
> it's dead simple to build and install.
Maybe we should be promoting pgpool's replication in that light. "If
you're looking something that works like MySQL's replication, use
pgpool. If you want a much more sophisticated and complex mechanism, use
Slony".
> Which kind of shows off the difference in philosophy between the two
> development camps. The postgresql folks are very very picky about what
> gets put into the main package, and let's face it, pgpool, while neat,
> is not really ready for integration into the backend. Meanwhile, a
> nearly identical replication system IS integrated into the backend of
> MySQL, warts and all for the sake of convenience of the users, and
> possibly marketing.
>
> It's not that one way is so much better than the other, it's just
> indicative of how the two camps operate.
I'd say google:'mysql gotchas' is a pretty good indicator of that. ;)
MySQL tries desperatly hard to make databases 'easy', but the reality is
that unless it's a pretty trivial embedded database, databases (both
RDBMSes and database design and use) aren't easy; they're probably one
of the most complex pieces of IT in commmon use today. IMO, in trying to
'make it simple', a lot of people end up burned.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
