Subject: Re: Replication
From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
To: Russ Brown <pickscrape@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <432B0627.2030700@gmail.com>
References: <BF505885.3181F%scott_ribe@killerbytes.com>
	<432B0627.2030700@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1126899631.30120.43.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:40:32 -0500

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 12:51, Russ Brown wrote:
> Scott Ribe wrote:
> >>How about a third choice: you can also use a proven, reliable and tested
> >>  replication solution that is included in the core system because the
> >>core system basiclly provides it anyway.
> > 
> > 
> > Sure, but that one is spelled "Sybase", not "MySQL" ;-)
> > 
> > 
> 
> It's amazing how misunderstood my post was.
> 
> My third choice was a hypothetical future version of PostgreSQL, 
> modified from its current form very slightly to include a form of 
> replication 'out of the box': a couple of scripts to enable WAL log 
> transfer and also a solution to the problem of WAL log delay mentioned 
> by other posters.
> 
> I only mentioned MySQL because their 'out of the box' solution involves 
> transferring the binlogs, which is similar to the method of transferring 
> the PostgreSQL WAL logs, and it just made me think. That's all. I wasn't 
> comparing, I wasn't suggesting MySQL is better than PostgreSQL. I wasn't 
> suggesting that they have the 'ultimate' solution. I wasn't even 
> suggesting that they have a good solution. It just made me think. That's 
> all.
> 
> Well, I've learned my lesson. Next time I post I'll be sure not to 
> mention MySQL in any way, shape or form.

Actually, I would just suggest to not hold it up as an example of how
things should be done.  That would work for me.

There was a time, 5 to 10 years ago, when MySQL AB spent a LOT of energy
demonizing PostgreSQL to make themselves look better.  There were pages
of misinformation in their documentation about how PostgreSQL was
basically crap, and MySQL did everything right, and a lot of people
spent a lot of time debunking that.

MySQL AB now plays better with others, and hasn't engaged in the kind of
character assassination they once did, but there's STILL a sore spot for
most PostgreSQL users and developers there, because they used to have to
spend a lot of energy and time explaining that what was on the MySQL
site was lies and misinformation.  A LOT of time.  And it did hurt
PostgreSQL, in terms of keeping people away from it.

So, there's an almost automatic response triggered by someone mentioning
how MySQL does things, especially if they're perceived to be holding
MySQL up as an example to the PostgreSQL community on how things should
be done.

In my original post, my main point wasn't just against MySQL, it was
against the philosophy that just because replication is  included and
part of the core of a database, it doesn't mean that it's reliable or
well tested.  And MySQL is a fine example of that.  Their replication
really does have a lot of issues.

So, feel free to mention MySQL, but know that mostly when it's mentioned
here, it's mentioned as an example of how things shouldn't be done.  In
terms of coding, marketing, testing, or licensing.