Re: Cluster/redundancy question - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Aly S.P Dharshi
Subject Re: Cluster/redundancy question
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.64.0510131003450.15022@edtnas67.telus.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Cluster/redundancy question  (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>)
Responses Re: Cluster/redundancy question
List pgsql-general
Andrew,

    I disagree, I wouldn't want to contend with all the complexities
and kludge of Oracle thank you very much. If there was a way to get
PostgreSQL to do better than the current clustering methods, then why not, it would be a
big win for us.

    PostgreSQL *is* an enterprise class DB after all, and we should be
improving upon it to do so and remain so.

    Cheers,

    Aly.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:38:22AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, if replication is one of the things you need, then
>> consider it, but if you're putting bad data into your database, what
>> good is replicating it gonna do ya?
>
>But if real, ORAC-style clustering is what you need, buy Oracle.  The
>limitations on MySQL's implementation give me the willies.  As Tom
>Waits said, "The large print giveth, and the small print taketh
>away."
>
>A
>
>

--
Aly S.P Dharshi
aly.dharshi@telus.net

     "A good speech is like a good dress
      that's short enough to be interesting
      and long enough to cover the subject"

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Limitations of PostgreSQL
Next
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?