Oh, yes, I understand PgReplication is comming nicely, and that will be
great then - but it isn't production quality today. Unfortunately, I was
unaware of PostgreSQL, Inc's commercial replication.
Of course, now that all our stored proceedures are written for MS SQL
Server, we'll need a Very Good Reason to leave. :(
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> PostgreSQL, Inc has a commercial replication available, and I understand
> there is a fair amount of activity going on with the PgReplication project
> as well ...
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Ben wrote:
>
> > Replication would help that. Our company would gladly use Postgres instead
> > of MS SQL Server if postgres could do replication.
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > > PostgreSQL's real marketing problem is that it's too good to be
> > > needed by the MySQL crowd (or they switch), and it's not a big
> > > commercial package for the we-need-a-big-commercial-package crowd.
> > > It's far from obvious that a name change would help in the latter
> > > case, which is the real market potential. I wish I know what _would_
> > > help that, though, in the absence of (sigh) Great Bridge.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
> >
>
