>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 11:26:24AM +0200, Pailloncy Jean-G?rard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just see that Mysql will propose at the end of the month a full
> > synchronous replication system with auto-recovery.
>
> Well, sort of. It seems to be yet another 80/20 Solution From MySQL
> (tm).
>
> It looks like it's based on a new table type. It stores everything
> in memory, and then writes out asynchronously. This strikes me as
> pretty dangerous from the point of view of reliability: what if the
> box dies before the write is complete? (And don't tell me about
> super-redundant high-availability hardware. I _have_ all that. All
> hardware sucks; HA stuff just sucks less often at a higher price.)
> Also, it doesn't support the other table types. I don't want to
> contemplate the horrible mess you'd have to clean up if you had a
> transaction crossing three table types and get a hardware failure.
>
> I'm afraid I agree with the recently-posted Oracle Veep interview:
> this does not represent any serious challenge to the core ORAC
> market.
What is Oracle selling as their replication solution these days?
When I still had a MetaLink userid they had posted a
"Product Obsolescence Desupport Notice"
for
"Oracle Replication Services"
The dates where something like:
Desupport End Dates
Error Correction Support: 01-SEP-2002
Extended Assistance Support: 01-SEP-2005
Oracle Recommended customers upgrade/migrate to the following...
which was no migration path exits, as no new versions will be release
and no replacement product is available
Their ORAC if I understand it correctly is a "cluster" solution and
no a "replication" solution.
Guess I should visit their web site and see what they are pedaling for
replication over WAN links these days.
>
> > I use PostgreSQL and I would appreciate to have the same
> features in
> > PostgreSQL.
>
> Sure, so would I. Talk to Jan Wieck about what he plans to do
> about it, and maybe consider supporting that development work too ;-)
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
>
