Scott Ribe wrote:
>>How about a third choice: you can also use a proven, reliable and tested
>> replication solution that is included in the core system because the
>>core system basiclly provides it anyway.
>
>
> Sure, but that one is spelled "Sybase", not "MySQL" ;-)
>
>
It's amazing how misunderstood my post was.
My third choice was a hypothetical future version of PostgreSQL,
modified from its current form very slightly to include a form of
replication 'out of the box': a couple of scripts to enable WAL log
transfer and also a solution to the problem of WAL log delay mentioned
by other posters.
I only mentioned MySQL because their 'out of the box' solution involves
transferring the binlogs, which is similar to the method of transferring
the PostgreSQL WAL logs, and it just made me think. That's all. I wasn't
comparing, I wasn't suggesting MySQL is better than PostgreSQL. I wasn't
suggesting that they have the 'ultimate' solution. I wasn't even
suggesting that they have a good solution. It just made me think. That's
all.
Well, I've learned my lesson. Next time I post I'll be sure not to
mention MySQL in any way, shape or form.
--
Russ
