Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
 by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from
 <pgsql-admin-owner+M42405=pgsql+2Dadmin=arkaria.postgresql.org@postgresql.org>)
 id 1WcLEK-0000ZX-5D
 for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:54:20 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org)
 by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from
 <pgsql-admin-owner+M42405=pgsql+2Dadmin=arkaria.postgresql.org@postgresql.org>)
 id 1WcLEJ-0004up-Iu
 for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:54:19 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
 by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <korry.douglas@enterprisedb.com>) id 1WcLEI-0004tS-1a
 for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:54:18 +0000
Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174])
 by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <korry.douglas@enterprisedb.com>) id 1WcLEE-0007cD-1Z
 for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:54:17 +0000
Received: by mail-yk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 20so3813738yks.19
 for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
 :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type;
 bh=EgB2cUaCx9RtyE7O6GOGERQct500r5dpu5GAnTJxzhs=;
 b=baGUwBqgiiub1bNCV/QSxBx5BtQ388q0T51G5dXyTjN66LAT1y7J1j0nrf0zpz/kJf
 Wp+1rGdEx3Q4352ZfR313fj3YrjBlDQH1DbloMIL12skJy8oSr/rUWgDJhm74TwSCkIw
 agBk1ArMkzDqXbtFefZhD/cxSCu26xuKn2TLHxybwR1eHys022iAM49PLDShm1qo5pFO
 h0eGVpTxzNGA4zg6FFu/mf5iN/8EVRf/7F3ha58CFWtXS7erll3xa9W/Is3HdFxxzT40
 EDHOtFIxEyI1y/7UbJ4Ch4T/HnEslzCT9cQZVp1sQxvPIQs1DhDlHpWHWunQ/rCzzgpp
 B6sA==
X-Gm-Message-State: 
 ALoCoQlIZPlTtHZoQDahIvA3gcO3gd2qt5JjCVnnHfCKUDUXk7UoYlsj71XNgGtKqje1HON9vE6v
X-Received: by 10.236.39.72 with SMTP id c48mr5670477yhb.89.1398113652075;
 Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MegaMac.local (va-76-4-65-131.sta.embarqhsd.net. [76.4.65.131])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
 t24sm73057316yhb.39.2014.04.21.13.54.11 for <multiple recipients>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53558562.5090106@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:53:54 -0400
From: Korry Douglas <korry.douglas@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
CC: Oscar Calderon <ocalderon@solucionesaplicativas.com>,
 "pgsql-admin@postgresql.org" <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL isn't enough scalable as Oracle or DB2
References: 
 <CAOqBXCBRq2rORKyM6JrMTvZLNhSuyf1Ad5zfreLxrw7JbCwOew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOR=d=2nwNd05kSPP_ES06rQ+nLR7nstvkJtohgHNiGScepMLA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOR=d=2nwNd05kSPP_ES06rQ+nLR7nstvkJtohgHNiGScepMLA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------020606020003000607090200"
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin>
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=help>
List-ID: <pgsql-admin.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=sub%20pgsql-admin>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-admin>
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020606020003000607090200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit




>> http://reshmaparveen.blogspot.com/2009/12/postgresql-system-architecture.html
>>
>> I was reading the Scalability section, where it mentions this:
>>
>> Even though the query receiving thread is alone it still offers better or
>> equal scalability to MySQL. In terms of multi-computer scalability,
>> PostgreSQL does not scale at all.
> This statement was wrong in 2009 and it's still wrong today. We were
> using slony well before 2009 with read slaves to handle massive read
> loads. While muti-master setups are still pretty new in the PostgreSQL
> universe, there are some seups like Bucardo. Of course this paper
> doesn't mention whether or not they're referring to shared storage or
> separate storage, and what kind of loads would be expected. RedHat
> Cluster server can provide failover etc. There are several different
> options that pre-date this article.
>
> The fact that it then goes on the sing the praises of MySQL clusters
> as reliable and stable makes me question the whole article.
>
>
And, the page mentioned above seems to be copied verbatim (and without 
attribution) from a 2004 paper here:

     http:// www.benjaminarai.com/downloads/whitepapers/postgresql.doc‎


                 -- Korry


--------------020606020003000607090200
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
      <br>
      <br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAOR=d=2nwNd05kSPP_ES06rQ+nLR7nstvkJtohgHNiGScepMLA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://reshmaparveen.blogspot.com/2009/12/postgresql-system-architecture.html">http://reshmaparveen.blogspot.com/2009/12/postgresql-system-architecture.html</a>

I was reading the Scalability section, where it mentions this:

Even though the query receiving thread is alone it still offers better or
equal scalability to MySQL. In terms of multi-computer scalability,
PostgreSQL does not scale at all.
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
This statement was wrong in 2009 and it's still wrong today. We were
using slony well before 2009 with read slaves to handle massive read
loads. While muti-master setups are still pretty new in the PostgreSQL
universe, there are some seups like Bucardo. Of course this paper
doesn't mention whether or not they're referring to shared storage or
separate storage, and what kind of loads would be expected. RedHat
Cluster server can provide failover etc. There are several different
options that pre-date this article.

The fact that it then goes on the sing the praises of MySQL clusters
as reliable and stable makes me question the whole article.


</pre>
    </blockquote>
    And, the page mentioned above seems to be copied verbatim (and
    without attribution) from a 2004 paper here: <br>
           <br>
        <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://">http://</a>
    <meta charset="utf-8">
    <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.benjaminarai.com/downloads/whitepapers/postgresql.doc‎">www.benjaminarai.com/downloads/whitepapers/postgresql.doc‎</a><br>
    <br>
    <br>
                    -- Korry<br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------020606020003000607090200--