Re: Native DB replication for PG

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>, "rod(at)iol(dot)ie" <rod(at)iol(dot)ie>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Native DB replication for PG
Date: 2010-05-01 03:02:11
Message-ID: 4BDB99B3.4080208@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 13:42 -0700, Gauthier, Dave wrote:
>
>>>> If I had to plan server deployments for the next year (and I do) I'd
>>>> be sticking with pg 8.3 and a proven replication engine. Next summer
>>>>
>>> Surely you mean 8.4? :-)
>>>
>
> No, I would buy the 8.3 argument as well. Depending on your conservative
> level. 8.4 is fine and all but 8.3 is about as rock solid as it gets.

Unless you don't vacuum enough on a bigger database, run out of FSM
pages, and the whole vacuum strategy goes to hell afterwards. I would
say that running into that issue is *probable* for an 8.3 install of any
significant size, whereas the odds of running into a regression in 8.4
relative to 8.3 is pretty low. The whole "the older version is always
more reliable" mantra doesn't make sense when you've got a major known
issue in the older release that just goes away by using the newer one,
and I feel that's the case with 8.4 vs. 8.3.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-05-01 03:08:22 Re: Inheritance efficiency
Previous Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-05-01 02:02:52 Re: Inheritance efficiency