Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:21:38 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
Cc: Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>,
	pgsql general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Notes on converting from MySQL 5.0.x to PostgreSQL
Message-ID: <20060701002138.GT17241@pervasive.com>
References: <b0f0a0e00606300617j2ed6dd4cub7bc2db972f6211a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1151680333.13129.55.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
	<60sllmuy33.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
	<1151705806.13129.79.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1151705806.13129.79.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11

On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 05:16:46PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> This is essentially correct.  Note that I can use pgpool with postgresql
> and get about the same behaviour as mysql's replication, with the same
> basic draw backs, that it's best to copy the database between shutdown
> machines, and things that are dynamically evaluated can cause issues. 
> With pgpool I get synchronous replication with automatic failover, and
> it's dead simple to build and install.
 
Maybe we should be promoting pgpool's replication in that light. "If
you're looking something that works like MySQL's replication, use
pgpool. If you want a much more sophisticated and complex mechanism, use
Slony".

> Which kind of shows off the difference in philosophy between the two
> development camps.  The postgresql folks are very very picky about what
> gets put into the main package, and let's face it, pgpool, while neat,
> is not really ready for integration into the backend.  Meanwhile, a
> nearly identical replication system IS integrated into the backend of
> MySQL, warts and all for the sake of convenience of the users, and
> possibly marketing.
> 
> It's not that one way is so much better than the other, it's just
> indicative of how the two camps operate.

I'd say google:'mysql gotchas' is a pretty good indicator of that. ;)

MySQL tries desperatly hard to make databases 'easy', but the reality is
that unless it's a pretty trivial embedded database, databases (both
RDBMSes and database design and use) aren't easy; they're probably one
of the most complex pieces of IT in commmon use today. IMO, in trying to
'make it simple', a lot of people end up burned.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461