On 10/27/2005 4:22 AM, Mario Splivalo wrote:
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 agree that Scott's comment was a bit harsh. But would you please add a
few details that explain what makes Slony a "poor replacement" in your
opinion? And please don't repeat that stupid "not builtin". Any add-on
is as good as its reliability and features. Or would you at the same
time say that MySQL has only a poor replacement for wannabe transactions
and foreign keys, because their storage engines are in fact add-ons?
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.
Would you consider publishing that code under the BSD license? It sounds
very much like one of the "other add-on replication systems" our users
keep asking for. If you can't publish the code, do you have any design
papers or a technical concept that could be used as a base for a new
PostgreSQL community project?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
