X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68E7D915C for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:21:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60805-06 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:21:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.26]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C17D91E0 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:21:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 25481 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2005 14:21:14 -0000 Received: from dsl081-105-229.den1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO [64.81.105.229]) ([64.81.105.229]) (envelope-sender ) by mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Sep 2005 14:21:14 -0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:21:13 -0600 Subject: Re: Replication From: Scott Ribe To: Russ Brown , Postgres General Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <432B2B82.5030709@gmail.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/785 X-Sequence-Number: 83800 > Indeed. But just to stress the point, I wasn't stating that the included > replication in MySQL was any good (though it's not terrible as we're > using it heavily in an extremely high-volume situation with few > problems), I was just bringing up the idea of getting a decent > replication solution included in PostgreSQL for relatively little effort. No, but IIRC, you didn't state that is was a substandard solution, and, also IIRC, it really sounded as though you believed it was a good one. >> 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. >> > > I think in future I'll just stick to not mentioning it. :) Probably not necessary; just make it clear whether you're saying "MySQL claims... and it would be good for Postgres to have its own solution..." or "MySQL has an actual working full-blown good solution for... that Postgres would do well to emulate". -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 665-7007 voice