>Good:
>* postgres is really good for concurrent accesses (in part because of it's
>better-than-row-level-locking)
>* postgres is stable. I don't think I've heard of many non-hardware crashes
>for a while now
>* php has good support for postgres
>* good feature set, won't hold you back
>* good with a huge amount of data, and/or many table joins
>
>Bad:
>* no replication (I suppose if you really need it, there are replication
>soultions, but maybe not as good as oracle or db2), which means if you're
>talking intense queries, you'll need to get a really big box that can handle
>all those requests by itself.
>
>Regards,
> Jeff Davis
Of course, a bigger box running PostgreSQL is still cheaper and
easier to maintain than multiple replicated servers. However, if you
need to have super-high reliability, such that you've got mulitple
servers in different areas of the country running concurrently, all
accepting insert/update requests from users, then you'd need real
replication. The PostgreSQL solutions around are good enough for a
quick swap to a backup server.
Elaine Lindelef
>
>
>On Thursday 19 September 2002 09:52 am, Elielson Fontanezi wrote:
> > Hi everybody!
> >
> > I doing a research about Apache Web Server + PHP + PostgreSQL. If it is
> > reliable or not. The pros and set backs about it.
> > From you what do you have to tell me about it?
> >
> > ..............................................
> > A Question...
> > Since before your sun burned hot in space
> > and before your race was born,
> > I have awaited a question.
> >
> > Elielson Fontanezi
> > DBA Technical Support - PRODAM
> > Parque do Ibirapuera s/n - SP - BRAZIL
> > +55 11 5080 9493
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
