Re: Oracle and Postgresql

On Sun, August 31, 2008 10:44 pm, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> The other thing that holds back PostgreSQL right now is a lack of
> experienced pgsql DBAs and application developers. That will change
> over time.

And built-in, simple to use, reliable, flexible and fast replication.
Many a Pg admin or implementer has looked on with envy at what Oracle does
"out of the box" in terms of replication alone. Yes, there are
third-party options (Slony, etc), but they're *third party*, and nowhere
near as reliable and robust as Pg itself. (thank heavens for Skytools,
btw)

This is /finally/ being addressed, although (very) belatedly. The Pg core
dev team always argued that replication was an add-on and should not form
part of the core (ie, similar nonsense excuses the MySQL team used for
"add-ons" such as triggers, etc).

Leaving this one vital issue so late has caused damage to Pg's reputation
in my view.

Come on Tom, how about talking to the Command Prompt folks (who are
?about? to release Mammoth Replicator as Open Source) and look at possibly
merging their Pg-mod replication work into Pg itself? If it's doable and
conforms to the Pg requirements, it will make up - and save - a mountain
of time. The alternative will be a few years of stabilising any new
replication code before it's considered safe to adopt in production.

Their. I've had my moan for the day, and I feel much better :-)

Cheers
Henry