| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Gerry Reno <greno(at)verizon(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Replication |
| Date: | 2009-06-23 16:07:40 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10906230907l2f520b83kb5d53f59f41404bc@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2009/6/23 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:28 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> The only one that is remotely viable is slony and it is so quirky you
>> may as well forget it.
>
> Like what? I agree that Slony-I is not a plug-in-play replication
> solution, but I don't agree that it is so quirky.
>
>> The rest are in some stage of decay/abandonment. There is no real
>> replication available for postgresql.
>
> There are:
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Replication%2C_Clustering%2C_and_Connection_Pooling
>
> IIRC only Slony-II and PGCluster-II is abandoned. PGCluster-I is not
> up2date, but the others are being worked on.
I wonder how many replication engines for MySQL never got built
because "it already has replication built in"?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | DaNieL..! | 2009-06-23 16:12:17 | Re: Please suggest me on my table design (indexes!) |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-06-23 15:58:40 | Re: Replication |