| From: | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail(at)webthatworks(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgre vs MySQL |
| Date: | 2008-03-12 16:39:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20080312173907.2d1c6a0f@webthatworks.it |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:13:14 -0700
paul rivers <rivers(dot)paul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For a database of InnoDB tables, people tend to replicate the
> database, and then backup the slave (unless the db is trivially
That recalled me the *unsupported* feeling I have that it is easier
to setup a HA replication solution on MySQL.
Pardon my ignorance of serious DBA jargon...
I'm thinking to something suited for load balancing the read as
highest priority in terms of performance *and* duplicate the write
across different boxes without the application layer has to know
about it as second priority in terms of performance...
I just would like to be contradicted and pointed to some viable
(easy?) setup for pgsql, so that I and other people will get rid of
this preconception if any.
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | paul rivers | 2008-03-12 16:41:54 | Re: pain of postgres upgrade with extensions |
| Previous Message | dmp | 2008-03-12 16:36:40 | Re: pain of postgres upgrade with extensions |