>
> Not really. The available options for postgresql are simply not as
> good as what the big databases offer. For some problems the
> non-transaction master/slave Slony-I is good enough. But to claim it
> is good enough for all, is like when MySQL claimed nobody really needs
> transactions.
Nobody claimed Slony-I is good for all. That is why there are other
products out there. Mammoth Replicator (blatant plug and which is a
transaction log based replication) for example.
> I am a big postgresql fan, and I have several production clusters
> using DRBD to replicate postgresql databases in an active/failover
> configuration. But some day I am going to need a cluster that can do
> active/active, and that day I will be forced to adopt a different
> database.
Active, active as in multi-master?
> I will also point out that none of the replication solutions have the
> same solid reputation as postgresql. As long the postgresql team will
> not endorse a replication solution, you can not expect people to put
> the same trust in these solutions as we put into postgresql itself.
That's true enough.
> Oracle do endorse their own replication solution after all.
Well they wrote it, they have to.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Baldur
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
