Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for a cascaded master-slave replication system

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for a cascaded master-slave replication system
Date: 2003-11-13 16:17:10
Message-ID: 3FB3AE86.5040102@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote:
>> Meanwhile we seem to be in a situation where PostgreSQL is rather
>> competing against Oracle than against MySQL. In our case there are more
>> people asking for Oracle -> Pg migration than for MySQL -> Pg. MySQL
>> does not seem to be the great enemy because most people know that it is
>> an inferior product anyway.
>
> I can confirm Hans' impressions --- I get very few questions about MySQL
> vs. PostgreSQL, at least in the past few years. People still using
> MySQL at this point know they are using something inferior to
> PostgreSQL, and if they didn't, the new MySQL licensing has made it
> abundantly clear. MySQL just isn't in the same league, and probably
> will never be. What people want is Informix/Oracle/MS-SQL => PostgreSQL.
>

I would like to add that there is a good reason why they aren't in the
same league. As a rule of thumb one can say that the smaller a software
company, the faster some development must turn into revenue. That is why
Oracle and Microsoft have the "time" to do things right. They can throw
20 manyears at a project and if it turns out that wasn't enough, double
down on that. I include MS on purpose here, because they gain that time
from some products, and then use it on others like SQL server. MySQL on
the other hand didn't have that "time" in the past, and look what they
do as soon as they have 19.5 million seconds more "time" ... the only
thing that is right, replace the whole architecture, or what is that
MaxSQL move? I hope 19.5 million seconds are enough, honestly. Because
nobody will double down in their case.

PostgreSQL does not have that problem because the base project itself
does not depend on any companies success. Time is relative. Our time is
very patient compared to their time. PostgreSQL gets the time it needs
for free.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-13 16:24:07 Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for a cascaded master-slave replication system
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-11-13 15:08:10 Re: RHEL

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-11-13 16:21:55 Re: ARC buffer strategy committed
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2003-11-13 16:07:23 Re: ARC buffer strategy committed