| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |
| Date: | 2004-11-10 22:51:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1100127101.4442.703.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 21:35, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 09:28:12PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Externally, everybody thinks that there should be just one, just like
> > there is for other databases.
>
> I guess it's this thing that I want to understand. Why do people
> believe that?
I try not to ask "why" people believe what they do. It's usually makes
no sense.
> Because other databases, where "other" are "the ones
> I'd actually run important systems on" _don't_ have just one.
OK. I guess the big O have RAC, Data Guard, ASD, Advanced Replication,
Streams...
The perception is there though: O Replication
Perhaps we should refer to PostgreSQL methods like this...
HA Slony
Replication eRserver
Log Shipping PITR
Load Balancing pgpool
That would do it-ish
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-11-10 22:55:15 | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-11-10 22:50:33 | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |