Re: replication: PG vs My

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Martin Sarsale <runa(at)runa(dot)sytes(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: replication: PG vs My
Date: 2003-07-16 02:36:32
Message-ID: 200307160146.h6G1koR28913@svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On Tuesday 15 July 2003 07:38 pm, Martin Sarsale wrote:
> Dear all: we're trying to choose a db for our site. We're a little bit
> worried about the load of the server so we were thinking in some kind of db
> cluster.
>
> Mysql has a built-in way to do this but I found that pg relies on external
> utilities. How good are they? Are they ready for production-servers?
>

Well, there are a lot of external replication solutions available, so saying how good they are depends on which one your discussing. I have heard anectdotal evidence about all (most anyway) of them being used in production situations, but I don't think any of them have had extensive testing. There is a commercial replication solution that has had extensive enterprise use available at http://www.erserver.com/. The company plans to open source it "real soon now" but as of yet you need a commercial license for it (which comes with support, so might be a good deal for you).

I also have to mention that postgresql tends to scale a lot better than mysql so youre far less likely to need replication for scaleability, especially in multi-user, multi-write type environments. This is one of the reasons that it's taken so long for postgresql to get a "built in" replication solution, the need isn't strong enough to get the itch scratched.

Robert Treat

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martin Sarsale 2003-07-16 02:59:14 Re: replication: PG vs My
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2003-07-16 00:03:33 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL gets $19.5 MM