X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03799DB01E for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:22:39 -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 33586-03 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:22:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pjetlic.mobart.hr (pjetlic.mobart.hr [80.80.51.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D809BD816A for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:22:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pjetlic.mobart.hr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE9617A14 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:22:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pjetlic.mobart.hr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pjetlic [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 06387-01-4 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:22:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mike.mobart.hr (mike.mobart.hr [192.168.10.94]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pjetlic.mobart.hr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F46117A10 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:22:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: why vacuum From: Mario Splivalo Reply-To: mario.splivalo@mobart.hr To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <1130339980.2872.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> References: <200510261015.17623.lawgon@thenilgiris.com> <1130339980.2872.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Mob-Art Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:22:41 +0200 Message-Id: <1130401361.31435.15.camel@ekim> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by OpenSource AV+AS Mail Server X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.004 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/358 X-Sequence-Number: 23211 On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 10:19 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > But, the next time someone says that slony is a toy add on, and MySQL > has REAL replication, point them to THIS page on the same blog: > > http://ebergen.net/wordpress/?p=70 > > In short, it basically shows that MySQL replication is incredibly > fragile, and not fit for production on any real system. The lack of > system wide transaction support, like postgresql has, makes the problem > he outlines that much worse. > > The hoops people will jump through to use their favorite toys... I see no point in blatantly putting 'other' products such shape. Pgsql offers no replication at all, you need to use slony (wich is also a poor replacement for a wannabe replication), or some other commercial products. What about 2PC? What about linking the databases from different servers? I've been using MSSQL for over 6 years now, started with MSSQL7 and went on with MSSQL2000. The replication it offers is superb! It runs smoothly, you have click-me-click interface with wich you can create publications and deploy them to subscribers with ease. Ok, there are gotchas (and they-re ms-style funny), but it's all well documented, and works most of the time as expected. So what? Btw, I 'ported' the merge replication from MSSQL to postgres. It basicaly adds triggers to every table that is 'published' for replication. There is a separate table to store and calculate the change differences from several servers (so you could do update on any of the servers and change will be propagated to the others). I'm missing 2PC badly here, I wrote some stupid python 'thingie' wich should act as 2PC serializer, but that's slow as hell. And triggers slow down postgres quite a bit. So, to end this 'my father has bigger car than yours' debate, when will postgres have two phase commit protocol implemented? I presume that should come after you allow something like SELECT someCol FROM myServer.myDatabase[Schema].myTable... Mike -- Mario Splivalo Mob-Art mario.splivalo@mobart.hr "I can do it quick, I can do it cheap, I can do it well. Pick any two."