| From: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Plans for 8.2? |
| Date: | 2006-01-12 22:51:52 |
| Message-ID: | 60psmxdppz.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com ("Mikael Carneholm") writes:
>>"Built In" Failover/Clustering
>
>>This won't happen. The community stance, which is a good one is that
>>no single replication solutions fits everyone's needs and therefore
>>we rely out the outside sources. Slony-I, Mammoth Replicator and
>>pgpool being the most popular.
>
> Too bad - I think that will keep a lot of potential users from
> evaluating Pg as a serious alternative. Good or bad, decide for
> yourself :)
Why on earth should that be?
What serious alternative to PostgreSQL actually includes built-in
failover or clustering?
For Oracle, it is a separate add-on product licensed separately.
Ditto for DB2.
The same is likely the case for Informix and others.
--
(format nil "~S(at)~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/x.html
"Let's face it -- ASCII text is a far richer medium than most of us
deserve." -- Scott McNealy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-01-13 00:01:27 | Re: Plans for 8.2? |
| Previous Message | Baldur Norddahl | 2006-01-12 21:40:40 | Re: Plans for 8.2? |