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 513FDDB068 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:22:47 -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 28358-05 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:22:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pjetlic.mobart.hr (pjetlic.mobart.hr [80.80.51.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A91DDB04D for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:22:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pjetlic.mobart.hr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A50017A14 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:22:47 +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 06387-01-5 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:22:47 +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 32FDA17A10 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:22:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: why vacuum From: Mario Splivalo Reply-To: mario.splivalo@mobart.hr To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <435FAA21.3070400@Yahoo.com> References: <200510261015.17623.lawgon@thenilgiris.com> <1130339980.2872.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <435FAA21.3070400@Yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Mob-Art Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:22:51 +0200 Message-Id: <1130401371.31435.17.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: 200510/359 X-Sequence-Number: 23212 On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 12:09 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote: > > > > You must have missed the FAQ and other side notes about replication in > the MySQL manual. Essentially MySQL replication is nothing but a query > duplicating system, with the added sugar of taking care of now() and > some other non-deterministic things, but not all of them. > > Non-deterministic user defined procedures, functions and triggers will > simply blow MySQL's sophisticated replication apart. > That is just not true. I haven't tried MySQL 4 and above, but in 3.5.x replication wos working as expected, and the load that replication posed was insignificant. The only TRUE problem was that replication was unidirectional. That SAME problem has Slony, and other 'replication systems' available for postgres. 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."